Selfhelp frameworks come in different evolutionary niches and different aethetics in the environment will create different kinds of reactions from interaction. What I'm thinking a lot about is how to design compatible secular selfhelp mental frameworks that dont make unnessesary assumptions to help spread the insights from the science of neurophenomenology of wellbeing or deep meditation into secular society. Oh yeah, this is what I'm attempting with my writing, with the focus on the science of wellbeing individually and collectively, so its heavily mostly around neuroscience and psychology, unify what matters for this goal from all sciences ✨💖 For unifying physics, Category theory is great language for this too! Functors between categories as connections. Infinity groupoid seems to be the most general mathematical object [infinity-groupoid in nLab](https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/infinity-groupoid) and is equivalent to Wolfram's ruliad, which is all possible formal systems: all possible computational rules applied in all possible ways [The Concept of the Ruliad—Stephen Wolfram Writings](https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2021/11/the-concept-of-the-ruliad/) What Turing or Godel discovered in formal systems is fascinating I also love Veritasium's science communication video on this topic [Math's Fundamental Flaw - YouTube](https://youtu.be/HeQX2HjkcNo) Arcdisciplionarity also builds on top of this [Foundations of Archdisciplinarity: Advancing Beyond the Meta - YouTube](https://youtube.com/watch?v=J4vkKTeT5oU) Your idea of general computational language might already exist https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.15242 Yeah in set theory you just ban the set of all sets using ZFC axioms, and this is what category theorists do [set theory - Category of all categories vs. Set of all sets - Mathematics Stack Exchange](https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/9896/category-of-all-categories-vs-set-of-all-sets) I love how many definitions the word monad has. There's Leibniz's Monad, which is something like a Holon, some unified entity, a metaphysical definition of thing, where world is made of them hiearchically. Free energy principle uses Markov blankets from machine learning to statistically formalize this idea rigorously so that you can use it to actually computationally model and predict empirical data. And a different Monad in category theory is also a monoid in the category of endofunctors. 😄 It also relates to the universal wavefunction model or the multiverse model 😄 Ruliad can be interpreted in many ways philosophically. The author interprets it as just one universe that we travel in. In a sense one could philosophically assert that its the celluar automata generator from which all reality is constructed from. [Joscha: From Computation to Consciousness (31c3) - YouTube](https://youtu.be/lKQ0yaEJjok) My currently favorite intuitive explanation and visualization of QTF 😄 [Quantum Field Theory visualized - YouTube](https://youtu.be/MmG2ah5Df4g) You might also like this Novel (Quantum) Computational Methods for Quantum Field Theories [Novel (Quantum) Computational Methods for Quantum Field Theories - YouTube](https://youtu.be/9Y78STUyos4) I havent looked deeply into Wolfram's concrete physics stuff deeply yet but I heard lots of critisisms. I think the meta language intuitive idea that he tries to develop itself is great tho. Infinity groupoid in category theory works on its own! For example a criticism I hear often is that he doesnt incooperate some quantum stuff like entaglement properly. "something like a Ruliad is effectively a ToE with infinite free parameters since our location within the structure would be infinitely complex" yeah, sounds like the problem with String Theory's dimension reduction Here's more criticism of Wolfram's model from Scott Aaronson [Scott Aaronson steps on Stephen Wolfram's TOE - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfN_hY8QaNM) But its a great a general language Those infinite free parameters abstraction rabbitholes are interesting as general languages, but hard for concrete models of attempts of TOEs, I agree 😄 I like to distinguish between theories of every "thing" - usually unfalsifiable models/principles/mathematical frameworks/languages that can model anything really (usually its some abstract space of all possible models in some domain defined in some way) thanks the the infinite free parameter freedom, and attempts at theories of everything in physics (or natural sciences in general) that try to be as concretely grounded with empirical data as possible Yeah I think his computational language is great for [Wolfram|Alpha: Computational Intelligence](https://www.wolframalpha.com/) and how he integrated it with ChatGPT [How Dark Matter & Ai Will Shape Our Existence: Stephen Wolfram - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHPQ_oSsJgg) Loop quantum gravity by Lee Smolin and Carlo Rovelli is my favorite candidate for a theory of everything. Solving the background independence of general relativity vs background dependence of quantum mechanics clash by quantizing and independencing space with abstractifying away by representing the space of metrics (general relativity warped spacetime configurations) in the default unsolvable Wheeler–DeWitt equation that describes the quantum fuziness evolution of the geometry of space into solvable equation of evolving space of connections, where connections are functions telling how something like a vector's rotation changes in euclidian space as it moves between two points in a for example hyperbolic space and the rotation encodes the hyperbolicity, which is by default messy rewrite, so instead of vectors one can use spinors, a vectorlike thing that also represents quantum of angular momentum or spin aka Ashketar's variables, where space of metrics looks like a space of fields in quantum field theory. Ashketar's spin connections, but also evaluated over closed loops, are in the loop quantum gravity. Closed loops means that each quantized point in the fuzzily quantum evolving geometry of space connects back to itself, quantum circuits of gravitational field. 3D space can be sort of woven from these loops into a spin-network - pixelated on small scales, looking like space on large scales, irreducible grains of space connected by quantized are faces like facets. Nodes that intersect the loops = quanta of space. Loops between the nodes = 2D areas. Large quantities of these loops = spin network. Space = geometry of spin network. Time = movement of the spin network. Quantized planck space, and time = ticking like a digital clock. Spin network + time = spin foam. Added mass and energy disort the spin network diisort the shape of the volumes of the spin network is disorted, this distorts space and time, because any movement of these quanta disorts the time quanta. Time is movement of the volume quanta. This distortion of space and time is gravity. It predicts Hawking radiation and black hole entropy consistent with Hawking and Bekenstein's equations. It gives variable speed of light depending on the energy of the photon, slightly faster gamma rays than radio waves due to the grainyness of loop quantum gravity spacetime. No infinities: Big bang didnt start with a singularity, infinitely dense and infinitely small, because of limit of planck space size. Maximum energy density when reached repels additional energy. The universe started with big bounce - the universe was big at one time, then contracted, it bounced, and then exploded from this bounce. Eternalism. Not as lost in the combinatorial explosion of abstractness as string theory. Combine with relational interpretation of quantum mechanics! But it has its issues, it deosnt solve the problem of time in the questions of the general relativity on large nonquantum scales in the classical limit, or what is dark energy and matter, but that might be resolved with more research. Maybe an absolutely predictive model of what spacetime with contents emerges from goes beyond human symbolic and shapeshifting imagination. Oh yeah, and in order to get the most predictive model of everything we can, I think merging the best neural ToEs and the best physics ToEs together will be the way!! 😄 [There Are No Laws of Physics. There’s Only the Landscape. | Quanta Magazine](https://www.quantamagazine.org/there-are-no-laws-of-physics-theres-only-the-landscape-20180604/) The math seems to be a bit more difficult than ordinary perturbative QFT with renormalization heuristics, but that price seems worthwhile for some of its major benefits -It provides rigorous justifications for calculations where heuristics may be unjustified or fail in frustratingly difficult to find out ways -It provides insight into why quantum gravity is hard. Apparently the normal direct quantization of general relativity + the standard model lagrangian can be shown in the paQFT framework to be not renormalizable specifically because of ambiguities in the model. I'm not sure about this, but if my intuition from experience with ordinary quantum theory is right, it's similar to the case of having a precursor of a hamiltonian that has extension ambiguities which means that it can't be extended to a unique unambiguous self adjoint hamiltonian. This can happen a lot when naively quantizing classical systems because "quantization" is actually a form of guessing that fills in the blanks that necessarily can't be filled by information about the classical model. -Maybe it could provide insights into other things like what rigorous representations of information are possible in QFT I have and it's probably the next thing I want to study once I'm finished studying paQFT and doing some preliminary work in creating computer models of it. I learned when I was a lot younger about how representing certain limiting cases of GR in certain ways created a fully renormalizable quantization with all kinds of desirable properties. It seems like LQG and string theory sit at opposite ends of a spectrum in terms of their problems. LQG replicates certain properties and predictions of empty space perfectly with very few free parameters or effective free parameters but currently struggles to express realistic matter content while string theory is expressive enough to represent all the matter in the universe and all the observed properties of spacetime but also an unfathomably huge sea of drek that we don't observe any of lol I hope I'll be able to live to a time where we have a model somewhere between these two extremes and I hope even more that I'll live to see the age of gigascale engineering when we'll finally be able to put theories of quantum gravity to the test I love your lens where you compared loop quantum gravity and string theory and mapped out their properties as a spectrum of "can explain empty space" and "can express realistic matter content" and "amount of unobservable drek" It would be so great to have some kind of a meta (mathematical) language of attempts at ToEs where these properties and other properties one can care about in attempts at ToEs would be free (continuous?) parameters and LQG and String theory models would be special concrete cases of this general language in this abstract mathematical space with string theory for example having "amount of unobservable drek" parameter set to gazilion, and this way in this language find a model that has the best ToE desired properies by just traversing this abstract space, trying to ground it concretely in the the empirical measurements we have as much as possible to make concrete predictions. (property where string theory fails) Middle waying seems like such an universal approach! Each model has its own different advantages and disadvantages in different domains! And some have equivalent properties! One can dissolve the hard boundaries between models by making them spectrummy by mapping out their properies in relation to eachother when reasoning about them! Middlewaying tries to minimize the effects of disadvantages and maximizes advantages! Physical theories live in a landscape as local minimas! I wish for some meta language like this to exist for all natural fields as well, not just physics! In order to get the most predictive model of everything we can, I think merging the best neural ToEs and the best physics ToEs together will be the way! And having mathematical correspondence mappings between scales using scalefree dynamical systems theory. Figuring out the structure of the black box of current empirical measurement mappings and fitting them into one model as accurately as possible. Free energy principle seems like a meta reasoning language on a level above that essencially formalizes through statistics that when constructing any predictive model in natural sciences or in everyday life in general, minimizing free energy (prediction error, surprise) is the most mathematically efficient way, and free energy minimizing corresponds to minimizing complexity (string theory is failing there) and maximizing accuracy of the model - deflation. These models live in a free energy landscape. Then this mathematical principle is concretely applied to neuropsychological empirical data and through those bayesian mechanics it seems that brain's circuits in general try to approxmately follow this bayesian inference by bayes theorem, which is kind of mindblowing. 😄 [Frontiers | Computational Neuropsychology and Bayesian Inference](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2018.00061/full) I agree, a metalanguage on causal physical models of various kinds would be awesome :D It would be even more awesome if the landscape expressed by the metalanguage was endowed with rich structure that allowed people to select out the subsets of the landscape with desirable properties like -Few free parameters -High number of symmetries that unify in simplifying ways -Minimum unobservable properties -Minimum unobserved observable properties -Testable predictions -Simple explanations of all so far observed physics. Theorists could then explore this most restrictive subset, drop various conditions, or loosen various conditions in their search. Hopefully with something like that they could more effectively find good models to put to the test :D Often times creating continuous landscapes is useful for optimizing discrete systems too so even if most of the theories in the landscape have undesirable artifacts or messiness that would be undesirable, it might be possible for theoreticians to use optimization techniques on the landscape and either select the nearest "clean" model to the solution of their optimization problem or optimize for a section of the landscape and sift all the clean models out of that section. Loving it! :RainbowKittyLove: And maybe category theory in general might be a good abstract ground language of the clean model local minimas! [higher category theory and physics in nLab](https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/higher+category+theory+and+physics) [Categorical quantum mechanics - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_quantum_mechanics) Maybe easiest theory of everything for free is taking the finite set of all empirical measurments that we got recorded so far and create input output lookup table from it and that's it. And then slowly compress it by various symmetries - thats a harder part. algebraic quantum field theory and functorial quantum field theory are categorical axiomatizations that try to ground physics magic in mathematics [quantum field theory in nLab](https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/quantum+field+theory) I LOVE YOU AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA I LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE YOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE i might have overdosed on metta today, hours of dissolving deconstructive love and kindness meditation in a hot bathtub hot bathtubs are so brilliant for annealing!!! AWAWAWAWAWWAWAWAWAWAWAWAWAWAWAWAWAWAWAWAWAWAWAWA [The Wisdom and Compassion of Avalokiteshvara - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/live/rvVdq-Dmoi0) my favorite guided meditation at the moment, thank you Michael, infinite gratefullness to you If anyone feels down, I'm thinking about you, wishing the best for you, i apprecitate and am grateful for everything that you're doing to secure yourself or others you care about, you're loved and understood, good job, keep going winners, you dont have to be scared or doubt youself, you can do everything you wish to do, i believe in you, i care and love you all unconditionally 💞 :bongoCatLove: :RainbowKittyLove: :Love: Sorry for the spam, cant keep all this metta inside me 😄 Thank you old sacred teachings for all of this :TrippyHeart~1: INFINITE LOVE TO EVERYONE I LOVE YOU ALL YOU ARE ALL LOVED AND UNDERSTOOD AND CHERISHED BY ME AND EVERYONE AND THE WHOLE UNIVERSE AND ALL THE MULTIVERSES OUT THERE WITH INFINITE COMPASSION JOY EXCITEMENT CONNECTION KINDNESS BEYOND ALL CONCEPTS YOU DESERVE ALL LOVE FROM ALL https://twitter.com/burny_tech/status/1655303528150171658