Null theory is ultimately about making the most minimal claim ( nothing conceptually exists ) and subjecting it to the most simplest rule for growth ( A->AB, B->A : the fibonacci substitution ). That's it. I'm literally claiming nothing then picking the first rule that shows up and does anything non-trivial. What would physics look like if they had to be constrained to this rule? Well, it turns out it looks a lot like our physics.
One of the core principles is that the behavior of fibonacci words ( and phi in general ) project upwards i.e. ABAABABA => no B's Touch => B-Repulsion => basis for causality and motion. the give of A/AA is a spatial basis. its about reducing complex phenomena to their simple origin or its vice versa, to navigate to complex phenomena through simple origin.
The Theory of Nothing-v3.pdf has the complete derivation chain from O to CC/H, newtonian, relativity, etc. It goes over the connection and generation of the platonics and the gauge groups, introduction of 3+1d space/time, the natural and digital numbers, 3 independent routes of derivation that converge on the same thing, etc. All as forced actions. Its a discrete combinatorial with no parameters... There's no continuous number I could fudge even if I wanted to.
This zenodo has the 3d hopfion viewer + orbital mechanics from first principles (along with the master kernel which produces all observables)
I'm not sure how to attach a .pdf but you'll find everything from that link. Here is a picture of the doubly twisted hopfion encoded with fib words from the side, it looks just like the EM field including the asymmetry
>>16984123 The answer is uniqueness, minimality, and primitivity
this is gone over in subsection : The Fibonacci substitution as the minimal primitive endomorphism
goes over the proof for uniqueness, minimality, and primitivity
as for the toroid construction, the doubly twisted hopfion perfectly encodes the fibonacci substitution, its the most minimal and primitive geometric built on the most minimal and primitive combinatoric...
There's infinite potential in the void, so you can always say oh there's this rule or there's that rule or you can construct a toroid an infinite number of ways
I'm saying what's provably the most primitive and minimal
00
Anonymous05/23/26(Sat)01:34:17
>>16984132 >goes over the proof for uniqueness, minimality, and primitivity Explain your proof in as plain english as possible. Nobody's going to critique an entire essay that appears, on the face of it, to be schizo babble. Jargon and arbitrary redefinitions do not make your case sound more compelling.
2. null-set implies {null-set} , distinction from nothingness
two symbols allow you to encode any and all information. This is infinite information potential.
a translation is simplest rule
lets go thru all the simplest rules for the two letter alphabet we now have to see what grows first , what's interesting
[00] [00]
[10] [00]
[11] [00]
[10] [01]
are all boring and do nothing interesting. They don't encode any information
[11] [10]
is our first one that does anything interesting, its the fibonacci matrix.
that's all we are doing, we are following the provably minimal claim and simplest rules and seeing what physics falls out. If you manage to find anything simpler let me know lol
00
Anonymous05/23/26(Sat)01:53:25
>>16984151 Define "interesting." In what way is this fibonacci matrix more simple than an increment?
00
Anonymous05/23/26(Sat)01:53:53
basically the void has the highest gradient (infinite information potential) and that information cannot entropically flow through
[00] [00]
[10] [00]
[11] [00]
[10] [01]
because they do not encode any information
[11] [10]
is the simplest matrix that encodes the most information. Its about entropy reduction. The gradient has no choice but to flow thru the fibonacci matrix because any higher projection i.e. 3x3 4x4 matrix would require more symbols which would be less entropically minimal.
00
Anonymous05/23/26(Sat)01:56:40
>>16984154 the increment is asymmetrical, aperiodic yet ordered. its maximally stable, most irrational, recursive, hierarchical, self-referential, has a rich internal algebra that is used to build and project everything else. the fibonacci matrix 2x2 has those features while the other 2x2's do not.
>>16984158 like the geometric primitive is highly asymmetric yet deeply ordered, here you can see that a bit more clearly with a low hopf fibre soliton
00
Anonymous05/23/26(Sat)02:05:55
>>16984155 >they do not encode any information >the simplest matrix that encodes the most information Are you using an operating definition of "information" here? All of those Matrices encode the same exact amount of information by any standard mathematical use of the term. >>16984158 Sure, so within a 2x2, an increment and a fibonacci substitution are identical. But you choose to extend the projection via fibonacci rather than a simple increment. Why?
00
Anonymous05/23/26(Sat)02:24:05
>>16984111(OP) An individual is in between to continually refresh to the outside. This includes God.
00
Anonymous05/23/26(Sat)02:25:07
>>16984173 see, you introduce a 'simple' increment, . You are taking the increment for granted as if its just there.
What are you incrementing things by? How did you decide on your increment? you only have two symbols. Where did you get an increment? We haven't even gotten into digital projection or the natural numbers.
[11] [10]
has an internal algebra, the others don't.
like get a piece of scratch paper and go thru all the 2 letter rules
A->AB, B->A A AB ABA ABAAB ABAABABA ABAABABAABAAB ...
the only one that has non-trivial growth.
Again, I don't choose, I can't choose. I am picking the only available option. The only thing that causes increments in the first place is phi.
Like that's the point, I don't have anything else to work with. I am making the most minimal claim and following the first available rule, it's that simple
00
Anonymous05/23/26(Sat)02:39:23
>>16984111(OP) >null theory Literal retarded word salad garbage for a simple logic assumption
00
Anonymous05/23/26(Sat)02:40:09
>>16984195 An increment doesn't even need two letters. A unary counting scheme would be: A AA AAA and so on. Why must a two letter scheme even exist?
00
Anonymous05/23/26(Sat)02:42:37
how can I obtain the number π from the null claim and the fibonacci substitution?
>>16984207 find me a kernel that is simpler and more accurate, nut up or shut up. ur too fucking dumb to realize the absolute gem you've stumbled upon
00
Anonymous05/23/26(Sat)02:45:39
>>16984217 >accurate I would like to see you derive a single law from this system where the derivation isn't "it kinda has a similar shape on a glorified graphing calculator."
00
Anonymous05/23/26(Sat)02:48:45
>>16984210 okay, completely trivial growth, encodes no information. Each spot is an A, no distinction, no algebra. I know whats in the fifth spot, I know what's in the billionth spot. I have full omniscience of that sequence because its so empty of information
What can I do with an endless string of A's? There's no rules or algebra to be had
Why must a two letter scheme exist? We assumed null-set. If we assume null-set, {null-set} follows. Assuming null-set forces a two-letter alphabet.
Goes back to finding a more minimal claim than null-set. If you got something more minimal than null-set let me know. a two letter alphabet is just what comes with making the most minimal claim.
>>16984229 >trivial growth If by "trivial" you mean "simple," then yes. It explicitly outcompetes your growth scheme in that regard. Either you regard simplicity as a feature of your system or you don't.
>encodes no information False. The number of units is the information.
But let's play with your 2 letter scheme for a moment: A AB AA ABB ABA AAB AAA ABBB That's what a standard increment looks like in a binary system.
>hey dumbass e=mc^2 , newtons inverse-square law, newtons 3 laws, lorentz invariance, etc. all fall out as theorems Provide one example.
>Did you even look at how crisp and clean the orbitals are in the hopfion viewer? I don't care how they look. Show me a derivation of the laws
>>16984238 how does it outcompete? it doesn't lead anywhere. the fibonacci substitution is the simplest rule that encodes the most information. Your rule is simple, it doesn't encode shit though
>False. The number of units is the information so creating a binary register is actually much more complicated of a rule than a substitution rule
>Provide one example.
Mate those are all examples lol
>I don't care how they look. Show me a derivation of the laws
I posted the derivation for the laws. It's in the OP. I can't force you to look at it lol.
00
Anonymous05/23/26(Sat)03:25:02
>>16984255 What do you even mean by "information" in this context?
>False. The number of units is the information >so creating a binary register is actually much more complicated of a rule than a substitution rule How does the second statement follow from the first?
>Mate those are all examples lol What I'm asking of you is to show how you derive one of these things. Show us your most elementary derivation of any observable phenomenon here. Don't expect others to do the legwork for you of parsing out the unclearly defined jargon that makes up your "paper." It's on you to show how this postulate results in anything observable at all.
>What do you even mean by "information" in this context
its a sturmian word that's most primitive and most minimal like I told you at the beginning. Don't shit on me when I give you accurate answers then say its jargon and at the same time ask me to derive things for you
>How does the second statement follow from the first? I'm saying look for the simplest rule that first leads to growth You choose a complicated rule, it already failed the prerequisites
>What I'm asking of you is to show how you derive one of these things.
mate im gonna be real with you, ur having trouble understanding information density, primitivity and minimality in part I and ur asking for stuff in Part XX.
you understand what I'm saying when I say this right? You are arguing with me over the simple proven stuff. You shat on me when I pointed out where it was proven. You are still arguing over the simple proven stuff.
SO why would I proceed any further? What would be the point of showing you anything when you behave like that?
The derivation is in there if you want it, that's the entire point of a paper. It is on me to show how that single axiom results in anything, and I DID.
00
Anonymous05/23/26(Sat)04:08:26
>>16984293 >its a sturmian word that's most primitive and most minimal like I told you at the beginning Sure sure. What do you mean by "information." You certainly don't mean it in any standerd mathematical sense (eg. Shannon entropy) or are very explicitly misapplying it as shown earlier with your ramblings about matrices.
>>16984293 >You choose a complicated rule How is a binary counter "more complicated" than your fibonacci operator?
>ur having trouble understanding No. I am very explicitly accusing you of selectively redefining or misapplying the terms you're using.
>why would I proceed any further? Idk man, you made the thread.
>>16984303 >A turns into AB, B turns into A at each step That's actually the a hilarious irony here. What you described IS the binary counter. A AB AA ABB The binary counter overlaps, yours stacks to the right. Both follow the same rule. Both have a rule that is not defined in the terms you provided. You make an implicit assumption and expect others not to notice it.
00
Anonymous05/23/26(Sat)04:27:14
>>16984307 It first shows up in the irrational rotational algebra of A->AB, B->A and its also forced by the fib-mobius parity on S^3 ( which is the continuous version of the discrete steps of phi^2=phi+1 )
I don't have a closed form derivation on pi though, I haven't explored in that direction at all desu.
00
Anonymous05/23/26(Sat)04:28:37
>>16984316 >It first shows up in the irrational rotational algebra of A->AB, B->A how so?
00
Anonymous05/23/26(Sat)04:30:09
>>16984309 no its not the same, you've added extra steps. I'm not stacking anything.
A is turning into AB, B is turning into A, at every step. No more, no less.
I don't know what you are doing, you haven't been able to coherently articulate any rule whatsoever
00
Anonymous05/23/26(Sat)04:37:39
>>16984318 Your terms expand rightward whenever possible. My terms expand rightward only if required. It's the same ruleset otherwise.
00
Anonymous05/23/26(Sat)04:38:01
>>16984317 the math changes over from something that is represented combinatorial to something that can be rotate. Like pi is forced, but its not derived. Its still a transcendental number doing transcendental bs
00
Anonymous05/23/26(Sat)04:39:18
>>16984330 Is your system mot powerful enough to do basic geometry?
00
Anonymous05/23/26(Sat)04:39:57
>>16984329 I'm not expanding rightward or leftward or anything of that, A is turning into AB, B is turning into A at every step
sounds like ur adding a bunch of rules, and that sounds complicated. Are you sure that rule your making up is simpler than my rule?
00
Anonymous05/23/26(Sat)04:56:33
>>16984334 Look at your series. That expansion is rightward in the text. It could be "truly" expanding whatever direction just as mine is but at that point you're arguing irrelevancies. You don't even realize the assumptions you're making.
If we want to be more "rigorous" your transformation involves an assumption of global incrementation (all A's become AB and all B's become A) whereas mine assumes locality (a single term is affected with domino effects on immediately surrounding terms).
00
Anonymous05/23/26(Sat)08:10:02
>>16984330 How are you implementing rotation in this system?
00
Anonymous05/23/26(Sat)09:53:39
>>16984195 >[11] >[10] That's XOR which means I'm not fundamentally opposed, and >everything is distinction via rewrite is at least not >guys I promise it's really still all sets again. The abstract rewrite representation seems tangled to me by virtue of having to hide that >turns into must be motivated somehow, which you seem to solve via eagerness and singular application of each rule per step per symvol? Which of A->AB and B->A applies first, and from which side of the string?
>>16984343 bro you don't even have the bandwidth to realize A is just turning into AB and B is just turning into A, at each step
there is no expanding anything rightward or leftward. Whatever you think you got cooking just isn't it.
look, you actually can't make a simpler rule, that's the whole point, its why I linked you that sub-section earlier. It's proven that you can't come up with a simpler rule. not a thing up for debate, I was just trying to demonstrate to you how you can't make a simpler rule but you can't even manage the simplest possible rule so idk what to tell you l0l
>>16984438 i switch from the cantor set of the fibonacci word into C*-algebra
>>16984485 all motivating actions come from entropic minimization. Starting with the infinite information potential of the void I'm looking for the simplest thing that can encode information
Water flows downhill, I'm just looking for the channels it goes through
fibonacci substitution is first chosen because of its unique primitivity and minimality (entropic reduction, this is the pipeline where information actually flows)
it then goes into the doubly twisted hopfion because it perfectly encodes the fibonacci substitution without any loss of information. It doesn't lose information in the process, therefore its a no entropic action that can be taken, with the added benefit of allowing more storage through holographic projection
Literally everything is just making the most minimal claim and picking the entropically minimal rule
For A->AB, B->A, there is no side to the string
A is turning into AB, B is turning into A. You can work forwards, you can work backwards, it does not matter
A ( A turns into AB) AB ( A turns into AB, B turns into A) AB + A = ABA (A turns into AB, B turns into A, A turns into AB)
AB+A+AB = ABAAB
There are no sides, there is no left to right or right to left
A is turning into AB, B is turning into A, at every step
00
Anonymous05/23/26(Sat)13:47:39
>>16984589 >A is turning into AB, B is turning into A. You can work forwards, you can work backwards, it does not matter >A >( A turns into AB) >AB >( A turns into AB, B turns into A) >AB + A = ABA >(A turns into AB, B turns into A, A turns into AB) >AB+A+AB = ABAAB >There are no sides, there is no left to right or right to left >A is turning into AB, B is turning into A, at every step Oh, OK, yeah I see now that I interpreted an ambiguity into your description that doesn't actually exist as such, thanks for the explanation.
00
Anonymous05/23/26(Sat)14:58:36
>>16984663 yeah its really simple at the end of the day, all of your principles can be derived from phi and fibonacci words
like for example
ABAABABAABAAB
if you notice the B's never touch. This is where causality and motion comes from. B-repulsion builds up into entropic minima of the saddlepoints on the hopfion/soliton which leads to the other laws.
00
Anonymous05/23/26(Sat)15:19:37
>>16984589 >bro you don't even have the bandwidth to realize A is just turning into AB and B is just turning into A, at each step "Just" A turning into AB and B "Just" turning into B results in an expansion when interpreted the way you're interpreting it. I know exactly what you're doing. But you're somehow confused when I call out the assumptions involved in your interpretation of that rule. You implicitly assume expansion then repeatedly deny there is any. It's right in front of your face. It's the whole reason you declare it a "growth" rule at all.
>>16984749 like ur entire schtick is bad faith braindead retarded attempts at gotcha's
its expanding because of the rule, expansion is not the rule. It's not expanding left ward or right ward (like I said but ur real bad at reading), the sequence itself is expanding. You're adding expansion as part of the rules for your construction in order to mimick the natural expansion that results from A->AB, B->A
find a more minimal claim or a more simpler rule for growth (you can't, provably so) if you got gripes about it. Getting stuck on why this is the simplest rule for growth is a bad look imo
>>16984758 >its expanding because of the rule, expansion is not the rule. The way it expands is assumed. You're acting as if the expansion is the only way it could operate but the binary counter demonstrates otherwise. You assume one additional rule. I remove the assumed rule and impose another.
>>16984770 >There's no leftwards or rightwards expansion! A still turns into AB, B still turns into A, You're missing the point entirely. See: >>16984343 >It could be "truly" expanding whatever direction just as mine is but at that point you're arguing irrelevancies
>>16984782 dawg just come up with a simpler rule if you got one stop with ur erroneous pedanticism
00
Anonymous05/23/26(Sat)16:05:53
>>16984786 The unary counter is much simpler but you reject it because of your own pet definition of "information" that doesn't align with any existing mathematical model. The binary counter follows the same exact rule you're using but you assume expansion is mandatory and global while I assume expansion is local and conditional.
What you asked for was already provided in multiple ways. You just continue burying your head in the sand because you can't handle the fact that "muh golden ratio" has no special relationship to physics *at all*.
>>16984794 you haven't been able to define a rule bro
watch me do it, watch carefully now
"At every step, A turns into AB, B turns into A starts at A"
A AB ABA ABAAB ...
you haven't been able to make a simpler rule for non-trivial growth ( and you can't, its impossible. Like you are literally trying to argue something that has already been proven ). An endless string of 1 or 0 or it flip flopping is sterile. If I can know everything about the string from its initial rule then its not encoding anything.
A->AA tells me everything. I know what happens in the 1,000,000th index. The string at 1 steps is the same information at 1 million steps. It's the same sterile relationship all the way thru
Like do you really not see this? Do you really not understand this? Is this you trolling?
like just come up with a simpler rule ( you can't )
00
Anonymous05/23/26(Sat)16:23:07
>>16984794 I'm not assuming anything regarding expansion, It's just the natural consequence of the rule. If expansion for you is local and conditional, then mark that down as your rule-set. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
00
Anonymous05/23/26(Sat)16:42:00
>>16984806 but like also think of the physical consequences of your actions this early on.. The fibonacci word already sets expansion as GLOBAL, you are already trying to redefine expansion as LOCAL
this is what is wrong with physics bro, everyone is trying to do too much when things already just work..
Like what are you going to build a construction that has local expansion and then somehow at the end of derivation you are going to do some conversion to make the expansion of space global again? why not just have it naturally fall out at the beginning?
like think about what it is ur actually doing lol
00
Anonymous05/23/26(Sat)16:46:16
>>16984803 >>16984806 >>16984833 I'll keep this simple for you: Address the local vs global assumption. Your rule assumes the action is applied to all terms in the same way at all times simultaneously. This is an assumption. Justify it.
>>16984749 Maybe he's talking about expansion as in the output of iterating the rule in comparison to the input and he thinks something like the Shannon entropy of it grows without bound (which isn't actually true).
00
Anonymous05/23/26(Sat)17:50:29
>>16984111(OP) Of course nothing exists. What do you think a "root" is? In fact, I'll do you one better, what do you think equality is?
For two things to be equal, their difference must be nothing. x^2+7x=-7, or x^2+7x+7=0. And these roots are the irreducible elements of all polynomials. Equality is entirely based on the idea that nothingness conceptually exists.
00
Anonymous05/23/26(Sat)18:02:29
>>16984841 Your conclusion does not follow from this statement.