The Coq mailing list

[Kenneth Adam Miller <kennethadammiller AT gmail.com>]

Hello,

Lately I've become interested in the idea of a fundamental void while reading a lot about quantum mechanics. Basically, my idea is that, if you could codify the definition of void down into a few properties, you might have something from which to construct dimensions and measure with respect to one another. I tried hard to describe the motivation behind this to a friend but I got some really smarmy replies. So I wondered if my intuition was totally bunk.

The motivation behind this is to explain fundamentally why the commutator between two basis vectors must be zero in order to conclude that they are orthogonal to one another, and also how the means that quantum decoherence can result in instantaneous communication across any distance by constructing computation/countability with respect to this and subsequently clarify the manifestation of entanglement as an outcropping of this notion.

I tried to explain that I was thinking of void as being this uninstantiated and unobservable entity, a kind of epitome of "that which cannot be", and to assert that although one cannot interact directly with such a void, you can encode other computations and numbers with respect to the original fundamental notion of void. So, I tried to say that that was orthogonal by definition, but that the lack of intractability or observability would lead you to conclude that you could not distinguish any one from another. As a consequence of this definition you cannot create anything anew, but can references, and can "merge" the encodings around these references. Then I wanted to define encoding as being the merge rules that are equal to substitution with one or more of these references. 

I hope this doesn't sound crazy, but I've really been thinking about this a lot-void is not false, and I'm not building the world out of false. But I can encode false as a contextually interpretable construct around void. I wanted to say that, a perfectly constructed definition of void would require by construction instantiable orthogonality. So, supposing you wanted to build infinity or a dimension; you'd go about it by recursively compounding the semantics of operation. So, you'd have plus, multiplication, exponentiation, and so on, and you'd have a kind of back reference of the same encoding so that, in each step you would extend both the substitution and the operation for the step. In addition, what's great about this is that it allows orthogonal computations to freely continue without obstruction by mere structure, and that it there can be more than one operation in each substitution operation.

All of this is what I'm putting together by means of intuition and memory of what I've read about computability and me just trying to combine it in my head, thinking of it visually, sort of. But it's really really difficult to nail down what I think is a missing other property and its consequence. Has anybody read about a definition of perfect void beneath the quantum level? I think it would make an excellent semantic primitive for constructing the behaviors of quantum particles as well.