0
$\begingroup$

Quantum theory is equally an epistemic (ie about information) and ontic theory (see "reality of the wavefunction" on Google Scholar). My question is about a theory that aligns with this, ie, the structure of experimentation is supported by an evolutionary step in an evolving spacetime.

I have tried to give a description of experiments as monads. The basic idea is that spacetimes are equivalent to interval domains, and therefore an evolutionary step in a universe is a domain map which is also a functor. The local environment (where all experiments are done) is a fixed category, and therefore the local map is an endomap and thus an endofunctor. The product $F \cdot F \rightarrow F$ handles the idea that repeated experiments go towards one monolith of data.

It seems quite natural to expect that we should also have a coproduct, $F \rightarrow F \cdot F$, implying that the endofunctor is also a comonad. The reason this seems very plausible to me is that we need copying. Experiments can be copied, so that other people can reproduce your results, and data can be copied in the normal sense. I just have not figured out what the exact mechanism should be for the copying natural transformation. What should that copying natural transformation be?

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it's about information theory and not mainstream physics. $\endgroup$ – Bill N Sep 14 '17 at 1:07
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Information theory is considered non-mainstream? $\endgroup$ – Kyle Kanos Sep 14 '17 at 10:15
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Quantum theory is equally an epistemic (ie about information) and ontic theory (see "reality of the wavefunction" on Google Scholar). My question is about a theory that aligns with this, ie, the structure of experimentation is supported by an evolutionary step in an evolving spacetime. $\endgroup$ – Ben Sprott Sep 14 '17 at 15:12
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ This reads like word salad to me. If you're expecting answers from people already immersed in your formalism then I guess that'd be OK, but it doesn't sound like that's the case, so: in the interest of getting a good answer, I would suggest adding a good deal more background to this post. $\endgroup$ – Emilio Pisanty Oct 8 '17 at 10:20
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Can you give a reference for viewing experiments as monads that is not the paper you wrote yourself? That is, can you give any mainstream reference for what you are talking about in this question, or is this entirely your own theory? Note that we do not evaluate personal theories here, nor do we do research here - the non-mainstream policy applies regardless of the actual merit of the personal theory. $\endgroup$ – ACuriousMind Oct 8 '17 at 11:13

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.