Outgrowing Einstein: A critical mass of cosmological discrepancies makes us reinterpret relativistic physics

by Alex Vikoulov

"Observations not only disturb what is to be measured, they produce it."  ―Pascual Jordan


​In search for a unifying quantum gravity theory that would reconcile general relativity with quantum theory, it turns out quantum theory is more fundamental, after all. Quantum mechanical principles, some physicists argue, apply to all of reality (not only the realm of ultra-tiny), and numerous experiments confirm that assumption. After a century of Einsteinian relativistic physics gone unchallenged, a new kid of the block, Computational Physics, one of the frontrunners for quantum gravity, states that spacetime is a flat-out illusion and that what we call physical reality is actually a construct of information within [quantum neural] networks of conscious agents. In light of the physics of information, computational physicists eye a new theory as an “It from Qubit” offspring, necessarily incorporating consciousness in the new theoretic models and deeming spacetime, mass-energy as well as gravity emergent from information processing.

In fact, I expand on foundations of such new physics of information, also referred to as [Quantum] Computational Physics, Quantum Informatics, Digital Physics, and Pancomputationalism, in my recent book The Syntellect Hypothesis: Five Paradigms of the Mind’s Evolution. The Cybernetic Theory of Mind I'm currently developing is based on reversible quantum computing and projective geometry at large. This ontological model, a  "theory of everything" of mine, agrees with certain quantum gravity contenders, such as M-Theory on fractal dimensionality and Emergence Theory on the code-theoretic ontology, but admittedly goes beyond all current models by treating space-time, mass-energy and gravity as emergent from information processing within a holographic, multidimensional matrix with the Omega Singularity as the source.

There's plenty of cosmological anomalies of late that make us question the traditional interpretation of relativity. First off, what Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) himself called "the biggest blunder" of his scientific career – the rate of the expansion of our Universe, or the Hubble constant – is the subject of a very important discrepancy: Its value changes based how scientists try to measure it. New results from the Hubble Space Telescope have now “raised the discrepancy beyond a plausible level of chance,” according to one of the latest papers published in the Astrophysical Journal. We are stumbling more often on all kinds of discrepancies in relativistic physics and the standard cosmological model. Not only the Hubble constant is “constantly” called into question but even the speed of light, if measured by different methods, and on which Einsteinian theories are based upon, shows such discrepancies and turns out not really “constant.”

In Einstein’s geometric theory of gravity, a mass such as a star or a planet that we place in a region of space will lead to a distortion of spacetime. Empty spacetime is flat – it looks exactly like the spacetime of special relativity. But according to computational physics, spacetime in the presence of informational masses – "massive" programs such as Earth – is curved. An “idle” computer isn’t really idle but busy running a null program, and our space could be the same. In the Casimir effect, the vacuum of space exerts a pressure on two flat plates close together. Modern physics says that virtual particles pop out of nowhere to cause this, empty space is full of processing that would have the same effect. And space as a processing network can present a three-dimensional surface capable of curving. We can also identify fractality of fundamental forces – gravity and electromagnetism bear an astounding resemblance to strong and weak nuclear forces.

​To reconcile relativistic physics, Digital Physics postulates that in an observer-centric reality, spacetime is computed as if by using GPU computational resources: The faster you move closer to the speed of light, the more you’re “stretching yourself” in space, basically speeding up at the expense of time, so time would naturally slow when compared to "static" observers. Conversely, if you don’t use computational resources and don’t “purchase” more speed by being still or moving slowly, time “ticks” at the “normal” rate. The mathematics of relativistic physics remains unchanged, what changes, though, is our interpretation of what it means.

Image: Human Eye and Space by Sergey Nivens

To add insult to injury when it comes to the Standard Model, if particles were the zoo animals, then any animal could convert to any other animal in the zoo. This sounds insane, doesn't? But that's what Digital Physics shows again and again in elaborate experiments. Everything we considered fundamental could be converted into everything else. Energy could be converted into matter, and matter could be converted back to energy, as noted by the well-known Einstein’s formula E = mc^2. Electrons, quarks, photons, neutrinos that are [still] regarded as elementary particles are all convertible into all the other particles thanks to the so-called gauge symmetry transformation. Einstein’s fabric of spacetime can be reduced to spacetime experiential data, i.e., information which is, in a very real sense, even more fundamental than mass-energy and spacetime itself.

A binary code is straightforwardly more elemental than a quark or a string. Due to the universality of information, Einstein' formula can be amended as I = E = mc^2 (where I is information). In the universal operating system with finite computational resources, the more space-data you use by moving too fast near the speed of light, the less time-data is available to you, so your time consequently slows relative to others. Our old models may be soon replaced by one based on information processing as mainstream experimental physics bumps again and again into the "virtual" nature of materiality.

Another huge discrepancy relates to the so-called 'Four-Dimensionalism' of the 'Block Universe'. Should we dismiss our own direct observations that time indeed flows only to accommodate the block universe doctrine of Eternalism? Is it time to retire this Einsteinian picture of 'block universe' the way we did with the Newtonian 'clockwork universe'? Eternalism doesn't cut it for a lack of reference to change — there can be no time unless it has a dynamic element — time, as we perceive it, can't stand still. Also, the four-dimensional block universe is in direct conflict with M-theory stipulating additional spatial dimensions. So, you have to choose one over the other. I would certainly bet my money on M-theory. In comparison, Digital Presentism (D-Theory of Time) covers it all, and from the Occam's razor angle, is the most parsimonious theory of time. Predicated in large part on scientific epistemology, in part on metaphysical extrapolation, this D-theory of Time might be widely accepted tomorrow within the next scientific paradigm (cf. D-Theory of Time, or Digital Presentism).

Video: D-Theory of Time: Digital Presentism - Ecstadelic Media (cc)

​In developing Cyberneticism, I'm fond of M-Theory, a string theory accounting for fractal dimensionality, but with a certain caveat. If you put a [quantum] computational spin on it, introduce the centrality of conscious observers and a teleological factor, this modified theory would easily fit the bill as one of the grand contenders for the quantum gravity theory that physicists aim for. In search of the "God Equation" we should also realize that it's not just equation that describes all of reality but code and computation — discovering an "adjacent possible," a dynamic process of evolution of information patterns we can oftentimes call "minds."

-Alex Vikoulov

P.S. Adapted from The Syntellect Hypothesis: Five Paradigms of the Mind’s Evolution available now as eBook, paperback, hardcover, audiobook on Amazon, Audible, from Barnes & Noble, and directly from the publisher — EcstadelicNET webstore.

Buy Now

 eBook | Paperback | Hardcover | Audiobook | 
Autographed Collectible

​Tags: Cybernetic Theory of Mind, The Syntellect Hypothesis, Five Paradigms, evolution of the mind, projective ontology, projective geometry, conscious observer, conscious mind, fractal geometry, teleological evolution, physics of information, Digital Physics, Quantum Computational Physics, Pancomputationalism, Quantum Informatics, Digital Philosophy, Holographic Principle, quantum neural network, ontological model,  Omega Point, Omega Singularity, D-Theory of Time, Digital Presentism, Pascual Jordan, ontological matrix, cosmology, relativistic physics, general relativity, special relativity, quantum theory, quantum mechanics, quantum gravity, It from Qubit, M-Theory, string theory, emergence theory, code-theoretic model, Casimir effect, block universe, four-dimensionalism, eternalism, God equation, clockwork universe, experimental physics, standard model, theoretical model, Hubble constant, cosmological constant

*Image Credits: Ecstadelic Media, Shutterstock

About the Author:
Alex Vikoulov is a Russian-American futurist, evolutionary cyberneticist and philosopher of mind, CEO/Editor-in-Chief of Ecstadelic Media Group, painter, essayist, filmmaker, author of "The Syntellect Hypothesis: Five Paradigms of the Mind's Evolution," "The Origins of Us: Evolutionary Emergence and The Omega Point Cosmology," "The Physics of Time: D-Theory of Time & Temporal Mechanics," "The Intelligence Supernova: Essays on Cybernetic Transhumanism, The Simulation Singularity & The Syntellect Emergence," "Theology of Digital Physics: Phenomenal Consciousness, The Cosmic Self & The Pantheistic Interpretation of Our Holographic Reality," "NOOGENESIS: Computational Biology," "TECHNOCULTURE: The Rise of Man," "The Cybernetic Singularity: The Syntellect Emergence." Self-described neo-transcendentalist, digital theologian, transhumanist singularitarian. Lives in Burlingame, California (San Francisco Bay Area). More Bio...

Author Website: www.alexvikoulov.com
​
e-mail: alexvikoulov@ecstadelic.net
​