The matter might not directly involve this sort of logic. If spacetime is an emergent property of quantum states and entanglements we might instead think this way. I would offer the prospect that very tiny regions of space have instead of divergent complexity they instead approach nullity.
I think a more physical idea is to consider the graviton as an entanglement of a gluon-like gauge boson. An entanglement two gluons into a colorless pair for the triplet state is quantum mechanically identical to a graviton. The extension of QCD into SU(4) gives a prospect for this with an STU duality SU(4) ↔ SU(2,2). The split form defines AdS_5 and twistor gravitation. Under the STU duality the very strong QCD force is dual to this very weak force that interacts on the boson level with virtually no gauge force interaction. There is this article involving QCD as a source of dark matter https://phys.org/news/2015-09-theory-stealth-dark-universe-mass.html#jCp This is similar to my proposal for a SU(4) QCD dual to SU(2,2) of twistor space. With SU(3) there are 2 weights for gluon eigenstates and 7 roots for color changing gluons. The connection to QCD or gauge theory is that SU(3) \subset SU(4). We can think of SU(4) as a system of 15 colors, 8 corresponds to QCD as we know it with gluons (c_i bar-c_j + c_j bar-c_)/sqrt{2} i(c_j bar-c_i - c_i bar-c_j)/sqrt{2} (r bar-r - b bar-b)/sqrt{2} (r bar-r + b bar-b - 2y bar-y)/sqrt{6}, for c_ i = (r, b, y). These gluons are 3 plus 3 as the root space vectors plus 1 plus 1 as the weights, or the diagonal Gel-Mann matrices. This defines the *8* of SU(3). The first two correspond to the 6 roots and the remaining 2 are the eigenvalues of the SU(3). The additional 7 elements of SU(4) would be an additional weight or eigenvalue plus 6 additional roots. We may then include an additional color charge, say green g, and have the system (c_i bar-c_j + c_j bar-c_)/sqrt{2} i(c_j bar-c_i - c_i bar-c_j)/sqrt{2} (r bar-r - b bar-b)/sqrt{2} (r bar-r + b bar-b - 2y bar-y)/sqrt{6} (r bar-r + b bar-b + y bar-y - 3g bar-g)/sqrt{10}, for c_ i = (r, b, y, g). The STU dual of this is then the SU(2,2) ~ SO(4,2) ~ AdS_4×SO(4,1) in twistor space supergravity. The standard nuclear interaction as the dual of this quantum gravity is strong, while the dual is very weak. Gravitation is extremely weak --- 40 orders magnitude weaker than electromagnetism. This would then mean that a tiny region of spacetime corresponds to the UV limit in QCD where the interaction is very small. This means that instead of a small region having lots of information or complexity, instead these regions asymptote to zero complexity. LC On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 6:06:17 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 27 Nov 2017, at 04:04, Jason Resch wrote: > > > Richard Feynman in "The Character of Physical Law" Chapter 2 wrote: > > "It always bothers me that according to the laws as we understand them > today, it takes a computing machine an infinite number of logical > operations to figure out what goes on in no matter how tiny a region of > space, and no matter how tiny a region of time. How can all that be going > on in that tiny space? Why should it take an infinite amount of logic to > figure out what one tiny piece of space/time is going to do?" > > Does computationalism provide the answer to this question, > > > Yes. :) > > > > in the sense that even the tiniest region of space is the result of an > infinity of computations going through an observer's mind state as it > observes the tiniest region of space? > > > That might be OK, if space was something entirely physical, which is > suggested by the physics of the vacuum, or general relativity, but with > Mechanism, spece and time might be less physical than here suggested. The > reason is that it is not clear how "empty space" could make a computation > different from another, and so space could be only a marker differentiating > some computations, like time seems to be in the indexical approach. All > this would need big advance in the mathematics of the intelligible and > sensible arithmetical matter. I expect space to be explained by quantum > knot invariant algebra due to subtil relation between BDB and DBD logical > operators (I mean []<>[] and <>[]<>). Kant might be right on this, > apparently space and time are really in the "categorie de l'entendement", I > don't know Kant in English sorry, but this means mainly that they belong to > the mind). > > Bruno > > > > > > Jason > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <javascript:>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
