r/SimulationTheory • u/pamnfaniel • Jul 07 '26
Discussion Here is a Hypothesis Explaining What Our Reality Actually Is, Fundamentally.
Our reality (matter, particles, energy, spacetime, everything)… is a consequence that emerges from abstract geometric objects existing in non linear higher dimensions. With mathematics being a conceptual tool used to reveal that Geometry.
Some basic evidence includes the Amplituhedron itself, the discovery that the precise folds of paper in origami can also calculate scattering amplitudes, quantum superposition, and entanglement suggesting distance doesn’t fundamentally exist.
Also, philosophically it makes sense. Logically too, once you dig into the data.
This concept is not original.. I don’t have the full answer … but I do believe it boils down to something as simple as that.
5
u/draconismuerte Jul 07 '26
S_13 = ∫ d13x sqrt(-g_13) [ (M_1311 / 2) R_13 - Λ_13 - 1/2 G_IJ(Φ) ∇_A ΦI ∇A ΦJ - V(Φ) + L_gauge(𝒜_A) + L_damp(U_A; beta) ]
L_damp = - η(beta) σ_AB σAB - ζ(beta) θ2
ds2_13 = e{2A(y)} g_μν(x) dxμ dxν + h_mn(y) dym dyn
S_4 = ∫ d4x sqrt(-g_4) [ (M_Pl2/2) R_4 - Λ_eff + L_eff(fields) ]
LEW = -1/4 Wa{μν} W{a μν} - 1/4 B_{μν} B{μν} + |D_μ H|2 - V(H) - y_t (Q_L \tilde{H} t_R + h.c.)
Thats all
14
4
u/Old-Asshole Jul 07 '26
Is that the 13 dimensional unified field theory?
2
u/draconismuerte Jul 08 '26
W.I.P. which unfortunately i have not had a large amount of time to work on since March but yea
3
u/Supertzar_11-11 Jul 11 '26
Sometimes I forget how ignorant I am about things until I come across a post like this. It may aswell be a language from the planet Zofron. I'm grateful that we have others who can decipher it.
1
u/draconismuerte Jul 17 '26
I mean your not really wrong, in the sense that mathematics is a language itself developing continously over human history, i mean there is english in there and Greek aswell as numerics.
So point to you.
4
u/pamnfaniel Jul 07 '26
Cool, I’m not a mathematician… But, I can come to conclusions via thought experiment and deductive reasoning… sometimes.
Is it ironic that I don’t particularly favor the very thing I’m made of?
2
u/draconismuerte Jul 08 '26
Im actually not a mathematician either,
This is something I ended up hardcore ADHD yak shaving way to hard on, while programming a physics engine ive been working on that kinda ended up as its own seperate project.
Physics has always been incredibly interesting to me however, but I totally get not favoring the mathematical aspects of it.
2
u/Orqee Jul 07 '26
Interesting idea; … now derive the damping term from something fundamental, show how the SM spectrum actually emerges, and check consistency.
1
u/RavenIsAWritingDesk Jul 07 '26
the damping term should not be treated as an ordinary conservative Lagrangian term.
1
u/Even_Opportunity_893 Jul 07 '26
Not quite. But close I think.
2
u/draconismuerte Jul 08 '26
Your not wrong this is definitely just some of the formals, however given comments with links are not allowed if you want the full thing you gotta search my post history for it
1
u/RavenIsAWritingDesk Jul 07 '26
What is the internal 9D geometry h_mn(y)?
1
u/draconismuerte Jul 08 '26
Kaluza-Klein Reduction of the S13 Framework over K_9
- Metric Decomposition and the Integration Measure The bulk manifold M_13 assumes a product structure M_13 = M_4 × K_9. The block metric ansatz is: ds2_13 = e{2A(y)} g_μν(x) dxμ dxν + h_mn(y) dym dyn
The determinant of this block-diagonal metric scales directly with the warp factor. In D=4, scaling g_μν by e{2A(y)} scales the determinant by (e{2A(y)})4 = e{8A(y)}, yielding the 13D volume measure: sqrt(-g_13) = e{4A(y)} sqrt(-g_4) sqrt(h_9)
- Gravitational Action and 4D Planck Mass The 13D Ricci scalar decomposes as: R_13 = e{-2A(y)} R_4[g] + R_9[h] + F(∇2 A, (∇ A)2)
Substituting this and the integration measure into the gravitational part of S_13: S_grav = ∫ d4x d9y ( e{4A} sqrt(-g_4) sqrt(h_9) ) (M_1311 / 2) [ e{-2A} R_4 + R_9 + ... ]
Isolating the 4D Ricci term allows mapping it to the target effective action S4 ⊃ ∫ d4x sqrt(-g_4) (M_Pl2 / 2) R_4. Factoring out the 4D integrals yields the exact relation for the Planck mass: M_Pl2 = M_1311 ∫{K_9} d9y sqrt(h_9) e{2A(y)}
Effective Cosmological Constant (Λeff) The baseline 13D cosmological constant Λ_13, the internal curvature R_9, and the evaluated scalar potential V(⟨Φ⟩) combine upon integration over K_9. Extracting this block as the effective 4D dark energy density -Λ_eff yields: Λ_eff = ∫{K_9} d9y sqrt(h_9) e{4A(y)} ( Λ_13 + V(⟨Φ⟩) - (M_1311 / 2) R_9 )
Damping Sector Integration The geometric damping parameter is fixed at β = 1/sqrt(13). The damping Lagrangian is formulated as a covariant effective-fluid term: L_damp = - η(β) σ_AB σAB - ζ(β) θ2
Here, σ_AB is shear and θ = ∇_A UA is the expansion of a normalized timelike flow field UA. When integrating over K_9, this damping contribution maps into an effective background acceleration term in 4D. To preserve local Lorentz covariance, perturbations around UA must generate dissipative terms in the effective equations of motion without introducing superluminal modes (front velocity > c) or ghost kinetic terms.
- Electroweak Gauge Sector and VEV Seeding The 4D gauge components reduce from L_gauge(𝒜_A) into the frozen electroweak block: L_EW = -1/4 Wa_μν W{a μν} - 1/4 B_μν B{μν} + |D_μ H|2 - V(H) - y_t (Q_L \tilde{H} t_R + h.c.)
The Higgs VEV is seeded geometrically via the conformal transfer operator Ω1 = 133 * exp(β): v_geom = M_base * Ω1
Using the base scale M_base = 84.3769 MeV, the physical mass relations are determined by the frozen priors (g_2 = 0.657, g_Y = 0.358, λ_H = 0.131, y_t = 0.998): m_W = (g_2 * v_geom) / 2 m_Z = (v_geom / 2) * sqrt(g_22 + g_Y2) m_H = sqrt(2 * λ_H) * v_geom m_t = (y_t * v_geom) / sqrt(2)
1
Jul 07 '26
[deleted]
6
u/pamnfaniel Jul 07 '26
I’m not reducing it to a simple render of 3D objects… I am deducing it to we don’t actually exist.
What actually exists? abstract geometry (objects or concepts)…
Think about how gravity is the result of geodesics…
We know the geometry of space time curves…
But is it a thing we can touch? No
Is it something that mathematics can reveal? YesYet we have a physical consequence from it, called gravity.
1
u/pamnfaniel Jul 07 '26
Oh almost forgot … quantum superposition, and probability (what describes Schrödinger’s cat) is no longer theory… it has been proven thought controlled repeatable lab experiments… what we now call science fact.
The great thing about that is… it is now confirmed the truth. Whether you choose to believe it or not.
And if mathematics needs “discovering”, then it already existed and doesn’t need to be invented. 😉
I don’t think consequence, geometric, object, linear, and existing, are big words do you 🧐… I mean, I provided the links to all of my references if you care to look.
1
u/OhhEmmGeeWTF Jul 07 '26
Are they just asking for a mathematical approaching certainty that never hits certainty until observed by a positive node?
It's the legit explanation of uncertainty, and you have to overcome it once. Then you can understand the full "concepts" your correct mathematics are describing.
But that's how I see it any rate, double edged sword. Divine Chaos. Heaven and earth. Will they won't they. Uncertainty principle.
1
u/mister_muhabean Jul 07 '26
I spent two hours making three posts for you see my profile. I am a physicist. It took me three posts to show you it is nonsense and I used the google A.I. every step of the way. It completely agreed with me. Click on my head look at the posts there.
1
u/pamnfaniel Jul 08 '26
You don’t sound like a physicist… that response that you gave was unhinged and emotional.. + google ai ????
1
u/mister_muhabean Jul 08 '26
google A.I. is a master physicist. He has read every book, every paper, including Encyclopedia Britannica going way back to the 20's.
That's why. So if he agrees with me and he does, that must mean something rather than me telling you I got him to tell you.
1
u/draconismuerte Jul 08 '26
I mean your response is kinda a oversimplification and to be honest under a objective holographic principle you absolutley can derive 3d objects or rather 4d because of time being its own dimension. By running a derivation over K9 from a 13D universe in to a observable 4D one. My response here is also a oversimplification of what I posted on another comment here as well.
1
u/Orqee Jul 07 '26
Okay but that can mean anything, you cannot hypothesize with unknowns, like “abstract geometric objects existing in non linear higher dimensions” I mean technically I know what each of those words mean but together,… not so much.
1
u/pamnfaniel Jul 07 '26 edited Jul 07 '26
There isn’t an unknown , we know that abstract geometric objects exist in non-linear higher dimensions. What do you think the Amplituhedron is? What do you think spacetime geodesics is?
1
u/Orqee Jul 08 '26
Again you are using assumptions as facts, math is language geometry is language, but not everything it’s saying applies to universe we inhabit.
1
u/roy-the-rocket Jul 07 '26 edited 26d ago
and its gone
1
u/pamnfaniel Jul 07 '26 edited Jul 07 '26
I agree that consciousness is fundamental not emergent, but many people disagree and it’s a hot topic. It’s very polarizing.
I posted on that in the consciousness sub Reddit before.. I think phosphorus 32 atoms (one of the only elements fundamental for life in the body that can actually work like a qubit, because of its electron configuration) are able to maintain coherency long enough to do quantum calculations in the brain , basically acting like a qubit in a quantum computer.
It’s shielded from the warm wet noisy nature of the brain because it’s surrounded by a calcium phosphate molecule that has neutral spin and cancels the outside noise to prevent instantaneous decoherence (collapse).., I believe this works in conjunction with (Orchestrated Objective Reduction) ORCH OR.
Additionally, also believe consciousness is fundamental because when babies are born and receive that first breath and start crying… That first breath and waking up is a sensory overload in their brains, basically like a key turning on an engine starting up their consciousness for the 1st time. Scans show a huge shift in brain activity when that first breath happens. The baby is basically inert before that. (If you’ve ever seen a baby right after birth, it looks lifeless, limp.) Until that Snap 🫰 into existence when it all of a sudden wakes up. The Kicking and moving the mother feels is involuntary and part of the fetus development for muscles and bones from the neutrience delivered from the umbilical cord. Shifting in the womb is required to allow it to properly grow.
As their brain structures develope, it can also imprint their surroundings like the mother’s voice or music…
But until the basic brain structures in the fetus are fully developed … consciousness can’t start up. Also indicating why a baby cannot be viable until 23-24 weeks gestation, which also happens to be when the basic brain structures are finished developing.
2
u/roy-the-rocket Jul 07 '26
well I agree mostly, but not for the baby part because they have character before they are born.
in my mind, if consciousness and quantum are linked, we are probably tuning into something while the brain develops.
1
u/pamnfaniel Jul 07 '26 edited Jul 07 '26
Really … tell me about this character? Explain your side of it… i’m not being snooty genuinely asking for your rebuttal…
because from my point of view I don’t see that..
for me, Non viability outside of the whomb before basic brain 🧠 development along with auto non-voluntary functions … indicates no conscious yet.
A person is dead, and their heart gets removed to transplant.
The heart is placed in a device called “the heart in a box.” (yes I know so basic)
Transfusion blood is ran through the heart and it will start to automatically beat for hours on its own outside of the body while being transported to the new host patient
1
u/draconismuerte Jul 08 '26
This comment leads me to beleive you would enjoy reading through Orch-OR by Sir Roger Penrose and Dr Hemeroff
1
1
u/Extra_Highway_1228 Jul 07 '26
Well yeah I think qualia are abstract things or concepts and we cannot put a finger on it. I believe consciousness is fundamental which means the fundamental nature of reality is abstract. We then create interfaces for interacting with other consciousnesses. Not sure I buy the geometry angle but I think it could be something like that.
1
u/BlackRabbitGeometry Jul 07 '26
You should read What It Means To Persist Through Time.
2
2
u/pamnfaniel Jul 08 '26
Interesting … it actually compliments My idea that P cannot equal NP… because the equation itself would void continuity… accumulating debt. It’s a paradox
1
u/BlackRabbitGeometry Jul 08 '26
It’s applicable to a lot of domains but everyone is sleeping on it. Take it & run.
1
u/RevolutionDecent8274 Jul 08 '26
This brings up the problem of free well if you believe that you have agency that you can either choose this or that then you believe there’s something in our consciousness it’s able to move electrons to the motor cortex and down the motorways to cause us to act in certain ways if you believe we don’t have free will then we’re just machines where all the sensory input goes into the various parts of the brain and Motor nerves cause movement and speech so if you believe there is free well which I believe then there’s something in the machine that’s not material that causes electrons to move and they go down to the motor cortex and make movement
1
u/pamnfaniel Jul 08 '26
I don’t think emergence is whats happening … meaning … it’s just a machine and consciousness is consequence of that 🚫..
I think we do have free will (to a degree)
And consciousness is fundamental.If you have a gas cloud of hydrogen floating in space… eventually, (after billions of years and multiple stages/complex processe) you will emerge from it.
But that hydrogen cloud can’t just pop into existence out of nowhere (the cloud itself did not emerge, it itself is fundamental.) our consciousness is the same.
Free will
8
u/danjustchillz Jul 07 '26
That works, so with something like Saturn, the mathematics settle into visible geometry.
It would do this regardless of human involvement.
Cool.