| website | robots | DC.rights | ORCID | author | tags | created | modified | aliases | title | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
By accessing this content, you agree to https://qnfo.org/LICENSE. Non-commercial use only. Attribution required. |
https://qnfo.org/LICENSE. Users are bound by terms upon access. |
Rowan Brad Quni |
QNFO |
2025-02-27 01:18:29 UTC |
2025-04-17 05:44:35 UTC |
|
README |
By accessing this website you agree to the [[LICENSE|EULA]]
“Theory of Everything” Flavor this Month: [[releases/alpha/Information Ontology/Information Ontology|Information Ontology]]
Infomatics is Dead! Long Live Information (Ontology)!
Progress necessitates a commitment to falsifying even one’s own beliefs. Never let it be said I’m not willing to falsify mine... here’s proof, a detailed succession of my failures.
If you’ve been following the research coming out of QNFO, you might be experiencing a touch of intellectual whiplash. It seems like every few months, there’s a new “flavor” of fundamental theory emerging from the conceptual crucible. Is it Quantum Information Ontology this week? Holistic Information Theory? Perhaps the grand Informational Universe Hypothesis? Or the geometrically ambitious Infomatics?
Well, you can cross the last one off the list. Infomatics v3 is officially dead. After a rigorous development cycle attempting to ground physics in the fundamental constants π and φ, replacing Planck’s constant, deriving particle masses, and explaining cosmology without dark stuff... it made a critical error. Its final, most refined version (v3.3, based on “Ratio Resonance”) robustly predicted the existence of a stable, charged scalar particle lighter than the electron. Reality, inconveniently, shows no such particle. Falsified. Done. Into the theoretical graveyard it goes, alongside many of its predecessors.
So, what’s going on? Are we just throwing theoretical spaghetti at the wall? Not quite. Think of it like particle physics exploring different energy levels or “flavors.” Some particles, like the up and down quarks that make protons, are remarkably stable. Others are fleeting resonances, decaying almost instantly. Our theoretical frameworks seem to follow a similar pattern. We’re exploring the “flavor landscape” of possible information-based realities. Some ideas resonate briefly, showing tantalizing correlations (like Infomatics’ uncanny φ-mass scaling for leptons), while others prove fundamentally unstable when subjected to rigorous internal consistency checks and empirical confrontation.
AI is superior for rapid prototyping and active falsification #failfast
This rapid iteration–this seemingly constant generation of new theoretical “flavors”–is significantly accelerated by intense collaboration with AI. Advanced LLMs allow for incredibly fast prototyping of ideas, exploration of their logical consequences, and, crucially, rigorous adversarial testing. We can build up a framework and tear it down based on internal contradictions or failed predictions much faster than ever before. This isn’t about chasing novelty; it’s about leveraging AI to “fail fast,” discarding unproductive paths quickly, and identifying the core principles that do withstand scrutiny. Infomatics’ falsification wasn’t a failure of the process; it was a success of the methodology in efficiently identifying a dead end.
Tl;dr: There’s still something worth exploring further, which gives birth to Information Ontology (IO). It’s interesting that the (AI-suggested) framework names have come full circle, starting a couple years ago with Quantum Information Ontology (QIO); which, for reasons that I have documented and critiqued extensively, now omits “quanta” on this next “strange loop” cycle around the information universe.
So, where does this leave us? The failure of Infomatics v3, particularly its specific reliance on π-φ resonance mechanisms, doesn’t invalidate the core motivations: the deep dissatisfaction with standard physics’ inconsistencies and the compelling intuition that information is fundamental. The lessons learned are invaluable–primarily, the danger of targeting empirical patterns derived from potentially flawed theories and the absolute necessity of deriving structure internally before comparing it to observation.
This brings us, in a Hofstadter-esque “strange loop,” back to the beginning, but with more wisdom. The current focus, emerging from the ashes of Infomatics, is Information Ontology (IO). Notice the deliberate omission of “Quantum.” Given the [[releases/2025/Quantum Fraud|foundational critiques of a priori quantization]](Planck’s constant ħ) that partly motivated this entire journey, building directly upon standard quantum formalism seems increasingly suspect. IO returns to the core idea of reality as information processing, exploring rule-based emergence (perhaps via hypergraphs) governed by an operational meta-framework that prioritizes logical consistency and qualitative prediction over numerical fitting. It retains promising concepts like Emergent Quantization from Resolution (EQR) but avoids the specific pitfalls of Infomatics.
Is IO the final, stable “flavor”? Only rigorous development and ruthless falsification attempts will tell. But the quest continues, fueled by the conviction that a deeper, information-based understanding of reality is within reach. Stay tuned for the next iteration–let’s find out together if this one has a longer half-life.
![[CHANGELOG]]
![[releases/2025/Comparing Fundamental Frameworks|Comparing Fundamental Frameworks]]