Could the Universe Have Zero Free Numbers? | Daniel Whiteson

Daniel Whiteson suggests that the unexplained numbers in the Standard Model may point toward a deeper underlying theory — and wonders whether an ultimate theory could contain no free numbers at all. Do you think the universe ultimately has to “bottom out” in unexplained constants, or could everything eventually be derived from deeper principles?

Just like there are no holes in the continuum.

What does Zeus have to say about this?

No numbers but a naturally selecting information coupling that optimizes inflation transition rate and whole subsequent physical hierarchy? Coded a sim that had nothing to do with physics, which was a substrate agnostic model of abiogenesis. Was based on some axiomatic principles and had essentially zero fixed parameters. Surprisingly it generated emergent hierarchies that looked a bit like a toy inflationary cosmogenesis model with a residual information vacuum state with dark energy and matter relic. This primordial information vacuum state in the sim, also entropically phase changed its primordial post inflation information state, disunifying primordial information dynamically into domains which behave a bit like GR and QM. Anyways per No number inflationary natural selection, the inflationary like hierarchies which the sim produced, rate optimized around a simple information coupling ratio. Around ~1/24 from some rudimentary Monte Carlo testing. This naturally selected inflationary rate coupling, informed every emergent level from the structure of the inflationary boundary condition, down to the vacuum which sustained the inflationary boundary against the information condition existing outside of toy cosmogenesis via a entropic dark energy/matter GR/QM information equilibrium . So that my non TOE quasi prediction from substrate agnostic abiogenesis modelling.

If you're going to come up with a theory for everything that has no free numbers, that means you have to have a derivation for all the numbers for all the particles. This means you'll have to have a reason for every constant and parameter in your theory. You'll have to derive all of physic from logic itself, with no reliance on experiments at all. Is anyone even trying to do that?

10:44 — The name framing "theory of everything" sounds like the Hilbert program of physics to me. We haven't found the Gödel incompleteness theorem of physics yet.

I used to live directly above the eastern part of the LHC, in Saint Geny Pouilly. I was there when it was activated. I'm ok, but changed.

Thanks for this guest. He offered practical and theoretical venues of investigation with an open mind.

The situation is ideal to build a collider on the moon as opposed to traveling to mars to get to that actual speed of light measurement level...! We are 99.999% we need more speed to replicate the collision in real speed limits!

From a philosophical point of view, the particle problem must answer two general questions: Is the perceptible material universe based on imperceptible material particles? Is the division of matter limited or can we always divide every single, tiny particle?