Emergence theory is a code-theoretic first-principles based discretized quantum field theoretic approach to quantum gravity and particle physics. This overview covers the primary set of ideas being assembled by Quantum Gravity Research.

### About Klee Irwin

**Klee Irwin is an author, researcher and entrepreneur who now dedicates the majority of his time to Quantum Gravity Research (QGR), a non-profit research institute that he founded in 2009. The mission of the organization is to discover the geometric first-principles unification of space, time, matter, energy, information, and consciousness. **

**As the Director of QGR, Klee manages a dedicated team of mathematicians and physicists in developing emergence theory to replace the current disparate and conflicting physics theories. Since 2009, the team has published numerous papers and journal articles analyzing the fundamentals of physics. **

**Klee is also the founder and owner of Irwin Naturals, an award-winning global natural supplement company providing alternative health and healing products sold in thousands of retailers across the globe including Whole Foods, Vitamin Shoppe, Costco, RiteAid, WalMart, CVS, GNC and many others. Irwin Naturals is a long time supporter of Vitamin Angels, which aims to provide lifesaving vitamins to mothers and children at risk of malnutrition thereby reducing preventable illness, blindness, and death and creating healthier communities.**

**Outside of his work in physics, Klee is active in supporting students, scientists, educators, and founders in their aim toward discovering solutions to activate positive change in the world. He has supported and invested in a wide range of people, causes and companies including Change.org, Upworthy, Donors Choose, Moon Express, Mayasil, the X PRIZE Foundation, and Singularity University where he is an Associate Founder.**

Conceptual Overview

Klee Irwin

January 2, 2019

ABSTRACT: Emergence theory is a code-theoretic first-principles based discretized quantum

field theoretic approach to quantum gravity and particle physics. This overview covers the

primary set of ideas being assembled by Quantum Gravity Research.

MOTIVATION

Modern unification models relate experimental observables via gauge symmetry modeling. The

observables themselves are generally not explained within the models. We believe nature is

code theoretic. Codes are finite sets of object types with syntactical ordering rules and degrees

of freedom. Discovering and simulating with nature’s actual code would generate precise first

principles-based analytical values for the fundamental dimensionless constants, c, h and G,

along with the dimensional constants and derivatives. Gauge symmetry unification equations

would be a natural outcome of discovering the first-principles rigor of the universe’s

mathematical code.

AXIOMS

We adopt Euclid’s first postulate as an axiom. A straight line exists between two points, i.e., a

flat 1D space. This leads to higher dimensional spaces (composited from 1D spaces) being flat.

We are interested in the power of Euclidean space objects, such as Lie lattices and their

physically important Lie algebraic analogues. We interpret the physical realism of Lie algebraic

gauge symmetry unification physics to be a clue that nature uses flat spaces in the form of Lie

lattice theory. An equivalent non-geometric view is to correlate the algebras associated with Lie

lattices to be equal to certain graph theoretic algebras, wherein the magnitudes of near

neighbor graph connections are of equal magnitude. For example, if we take the complete

graph of three objects and assume the magnitudes of the three connections to be equal, we

can correlate this to the equidistant set of three points in a flat space – a 3-simplex. Such a

graph theoretic approach can be extended to a complete Lie lattice, from which the

corresponding Lie algebra may be derived.

Our second axiom is the assumption that the code theoretic axiom is true.

DISCRETIZING SPACETIME INTO A CODE

Loop quantum gravity (LQG) is elegant because it starts with graph theory and discretizes

spacetime in a quantum mechanical framework. Our thinking is similar. But it is dissimilar with

respect to the code theoretic axiom. A code is a finite set of objects (symbol types) with rules

and syntactical degrees of freedom – allowed ways to relate the objects. With LQG, the infinite

set of object types – the infinite or “smooth” set of deficit angle values associated with the

spacetime quanta of a spin foam – prohibits the evolution from being code theoretic.

We take a different approach. In order to recover standard model gauge symmetry physics

while creating a spacetime code, we start with a slice of the Lie lattice analogue of the largest

exceptional Lie group, E8. It contains the necessary algebraic structure to recover standard

model gauge symmetry equations. Using a projection angle derived directly from the 4D

subspaces of the E8 lattice, we transform it into a 4+1 dimensional geometric code, wherein

quasiparticles, called phasons, propagate and interact according to the code syntax degrees of

freedom. See here for more. Although many codes, such as C++ and English are arbitrary and

not based on first principles, other codes, such as a division algebra or a quasicrystalline phason

code (based on a shift vector algebra) are based on first principles. Nature would use a first

principles code.

Instead of using an infinite set of smooth curvature values in the deficit angles of a spin foam

formalism, we use a highly restricted set of deficit angles corresponding to standard Euclidian

space trigonometry. See here for details.

The behavior of this code is represented as a 3+1D phason code on a 3D graph space called the

quasicrystalline spin network (QSN). As with any code, its expression is never a deterministic

algorithm playing itself out. While it is true that codes can be used to write deterministic

algorithms, syntax decisions must always be made when using codes. This can be done with a a

random number generator, a human syntax chooser or some other way of exercising the non-

deterministic nature of syntactically free choices.

It is not controversial to admit that freewill can emerge within the laws of physics, since most

physicists presume they have freewill. The term freewill can be defined as: A non-random

choice not strictly determined by other events. Assuming the code theoretic axiom to be true,

freewill syntax choosers can emerge from a physical spacetime code and loop back to act upon

the code’s syntactical freedom. By way of example, consider a woman at the bottom of an

energy well. We assume her freewill has emerged according to the rules of some fundamental

spacetime code. In emergent systems much simpler than the woman, the statistics of the code

should reproduce a form of quantum thermodynamics. Let us imagine the energy well is very

deep. Accordingly, quantum thermodynamic statistics alone would not allow the wavefunction

of her body or its individual particles to climb out of the energy well with real-world probability.

And yet, due to her freewill, she chooses to spend energy to climb out of the well each time she

is placed in it. The example illustrates that her emergent freewill exponentially modifies the

probability amplitudes of the particles that composite to form her. The modification of the

statistics is extreme and far from the thermal equilibrium based statistics of classic or quantum

thermodynamics. She overrules the statistics of quantum thermodynamics because her

emergent freewill is concerned not with energetic efficiency but instead with her theory that

getting out of the energy well comports with her abstract information theoretic strategies, such

as picking up her kids from school. See here for more.

Any quantum gravity based spacetime code is, by definition, a hidden variables theory. In order

not to violate Bell’s theorem, such a theory must be both non-deterministic (a code is non-

deterministic by definition) and non-local. Quasicrystalline phason codes can be fundamentally

described by non-commutative geometry. They are inherently non-local via the first principles

of projective geometry. Structures called empires in quasicrystals allow patterns to be non-

locally connected over spacetime. See here for details.

ENERGY PART I – THE AB = P SOLUTION SPACE

We must wait for further advances in computational power in order to use our spacetime code

to simulate emergent complex systems capable of exponential probabilistic deviations from the

ordinary equilibrium statistics of quantum thermodynamics, as exemplified in the case of the

woman in the energy well. For now, our program focuses instead on simple systems, where

thermodynamic statistics dominate. Codes are vast possibility spaces for expressing

information. If there is no emergent complex system guide for the code expression of a simple

system, such as the woman’s free will and abstract preference for climbing out of energy wells,

how will we attach a syntactical choosing mechanism in our fundamental particle simulations?

Before explaining this, we must define energy via first principles. Energy in physical models is an

abstract observational plug with no rigorous first principles explanation for what exactly it is. In

minimally complex systems, such as an electron interacting with its own field, our principle of

efficient action takes the form of a principle of least computational action to economically

describe particle internal clock cycles and forward propagation steps. Details are here. Code

expression requires resources, where the resources are generally “energy”. However, we

require a first principles definition of energy as a computational least action principle, similar to

how Numrich presents it here.

Above, we discussed a projection transformer of E8 lattice slices that generates phason

quasiparticle interactions in a 4+1D (Elser-Sloan quasicrystal) and the derivative 3+1D

quasicrystal code called the QSN. To understand our form of the principle of least

computational action, let us begin with a possibility space called the AB = P solution space.

There are at least two bijections of this object. Let us discuss two.

First, let us elucidate the geometric form, which animates the QSN – the physical space. Let A =

an irrational projection vector derived from the ArcCos ¼ based relationship between an

adjacent pair of bivectors in the E8 lattice. Let B = the rational angular relationships as multiples

of ArcCos ½ between pairs of unit root vectors in the E8 lattice. Let P = the irrational product of

the AB coefficient pair – a projection to an H3 or H4 symmetric quasicrystal.

Using the above reference explaining empires, recall that we have two objects in a projective

transform that generate an action step or new graph state selection in a quasicrystalline phason

code. The first object can be called a boundary window, WB (blue), placed on the Lie lattice slice

which is being transformed. The second can be called the projection window, WP (red), which

lives inside WB.

For a finite boundary window, WB, there is a finite set of WB WP relationships derived by shift-

vector actions of WP within WB. These are the syntactically free relationships that the smaller

embedded projection window, WP, may be shifted to within the larger boundary window, WB,

to generate ordered sets of projections or graph state selections in the Elser-Sloan QC (ESQC)

and the QSN possibility spaces – the discrete action steps of the phason quasiparticle code. The

superposition of all WB WP relations is the possibility space or solution space of all AB products,

P, i.e., the possibility space of P solutions defining quasiparticle walks.

The projection window is likely not uniform and instead possesses a dynamic “vibrating”

hypersurface corresponding to the non-uniform energetic physical quantum energy landscape.

One purely numerical non-geometric bijection of this formalism is a tensor network algebra. To

conceptualize the logic of this view, consider that both the dynamic ESQC and QSN (ordered

sets of AB = P solutions forming quasiparticles) can be reduced to the interactions of 1D

quasiparticles on the 1D quasicrystals, called Fibonacci chains, two-letter codes made of the

Dirichlet integers 1 and 1/Φ, which composite to form the 3D and 4D dynamic quasicrystals.

The Fibonacci chains are isomorphic to binary strings of 0s and 1s, called Fibonacci words,

where each state of the changing string non-arbitrarily corresponds to a unique integer, called a

Lucas number.

The propagation of these 1D quasiparticles is the result of eigen value probabilities in an

ordered set of matrix solutions. However, when the ordered sets of matrix solutions are

composited into a tensor network of interactive matrices, which maps to the interactive

network of dynamic Fibonacci chains in the 3D and 4D QCs, the eigen value probabilities of

each 1D set of matrix solutions is modified. For example, one might recognize that the

probabilities for the various shift vector actions that can change a 1D quasiparticle on a stand-

alone dynamic quasicrystal are relatively homogenous. However, applying the principle of least

computational action, which will be described next, the Bragg peaks of the probability

amplitudes for shift vector actions in the abstract higher dimensional AB = P solution space

become non-homogenous and accentuated. This corresponds to equal changes to the various

eigen value probabilities on the ordered sets of matrix solutions in the tensor network

bijection.

ENERGY PART II – COMPUTATIONAL SAVINGS

Let us say we have two 1D quasiparticles propagating in two directions shown by the green

arrows. Let us say their random walk worldlines are such that they each need an object, such as

a 20-group, a tetrahedron or a point at coordinate XYT, where “T” is AB = P solution N, within

an order set of AB = P solutions describing the particle’s evolution.

The local inflation value stays the same because they share the pattern advancement need at

XYT.

Above, we have a case where the two 1D quasiparticles do not share the need for a coincident

XYT.

Accordingly, the amplitude of the corresponding region of the projection window surface must

be greater in this region. In other words, the local deflation introduced a 3rd distance letter

here, such that now we have three lengths, L, M, S, instead of in the first case, where we had

only two lengths. This local deflation has occurred due to a lack of computational savings. Here

we are recognizing that more computation is required to project a region of the projection

window that is larger, such as in the case of the three-letter region, versus the smaller window

needed in the two-letter region.

We extend this idea to the previously explained idea of a quantum clock, wherein we have a

Hamiltonian circuit or some other circuit on the QC graph, which describes an internal clock

cycle of a preon-based fermionic clock. Because empires extend outwards from the emperor

object in a QC in a given step, the empire waves share this same quality, where the density of

empire objects drops with distance from the fermion. Interactions of these particles do not

occur at the region of the clocks themselves but via the empire wave-based discretized

quantum field around clocks.

FIBONACCI ANYONS

Emergence theory posits that the spacetime code of reality is a topological quantum superfluid.

Put differently, it is a topological quantum net that expresses on a spin network to exhibit

various mixed phases of a topological quantum superfluid. Some expressions of this topological

code simulate classic-type systems while other expressions of the same topological code

simulate topological phases of matter. Is the universe a topological quantum computer? Yes, in

some sense. Is the neural net architecture of your brain a computer? Yes and no. Yes, because

it computes. No, because the 20th century term for computers generally means a system that

performs a deterministic solution as an output to that depends on some input. Our minds

compute, but they are not computers in the ordinary sense of the word. A topological neural

net code is interesting because it has syntactical degrees of freedom. And, where an emergent

mind-like pattern can emerge (in principle) on such a neural net, it can essentially hijack the

syntactical freedom within the code and guide it for its own creative and strategic purposes.

The underlying quantum statistical quasiparticle in topological quantum nets is the non-abelien

anyon, reduceable to the Fibonacci anyon. Quasicrystals are known to be topological phases of

matter. See here, here and here background. The last link says, “The surprising result suggests

quasicrystals could be used to create systems with dimensionality higher than 3D – something

that could be useful both in studying fundamental physics and creating materials with new and

useful properties.” Clearly, QGR agrees.

To deeply understand where we are going with Fibonacci anyons, I must start with the

motivation of the QSN. Why do we project the E8 lattice slice to 4D and then make the

compound QC representation in 3D – the QSN and its subset, the CQC? If we want a 3D spin

network based on E8, why not simply create phason quasiparticles by projecting directly to 3D?

There are two reasons. The first is that we must preserve the group theory of the A3 = D3 root

system via its vector polytope, which is a building bock of the fundamental 20-groups in the

QSN. This will allow us to use the 7+1 values of the Cartesian coordinates of the cuboctahedron

5-compound to exploit the physical power of octonions, as opposed to the E8 to 3D projection

which is more deeply based on icosians with their 4+1 fundamental values. Furthermore, the

cuboctahedron encodes the Lie algebras associated with the groups SU(3), SU(2) and U(1).

These extra physical power or complexity is deeply based on the quantity of parallel vector

classes in a lattice or quasilattice transformation of a Lie lattice. For example, the EN algebras

and lattices are more powerful than the ZN series. Trivially, this is because these vector algebras

generate solution spaces for algebraic patterns on the relevant root lattice. The greater

quantity of parallel vector classes, the richer the root vector polytope and algebra itself. Are

vector algebras associated with quasilattice transformations of Lie lattices more powerful if

they contain a greater quantity of parallel vector classes? Of course. The quantity of parallel

vector classes in a quasicrystal resulting from the projection of a Lie root lattice is always equal

to the quantity of parallel vector classes of the Lie lattice itself. We have 120 parallel vector

classes in E8. However, if we project to 3D via an irrational angle, we will generally get a

projection which does not correspond to a vector algebra. We may project E8 slices to lower

dimensional crystallographic Lie lattices corresponding to Lie algebras. Or we may project them

via arbitrary irrational angles to produce lower dimensional shadows that are not algebras. The

special case are the angles of projection that maximize the quantity of parallel vector classes in

the projective space while at the same time revealing vector algebras. When we project E8 to

3D, we collapse the 120 parallel vector classes in E8 to 15 parallel vector classes in the

projection. We may use the icosian calculous, forms of non-commutative geometry and other

algebraic isomorphisms and bijections. But not octonion based algebras. As long as the

projection corresponds to a crystallographic or non-crystallographic algebra, we can recognize

that the quantity of parallel vector classes corresponds to the complexity of the root vector

polytope of the resulting vector algebra. When we project E8 to 4D, we get 60 parallel line

classes. When we project E8 to 4D and then represent that projection in 3D via the

compounding method, we get 60 parallel vector classes. We must soon discover an analogue of

icosian calculous in the QSN. One can understand icosian calculous via the Cartesian

coordinates of the icosahedron and its dual, the dodecahedron. With 15 parallel edge classes,

these objects are significantly less complicated than the 20-group, which shares the same

convex hull as the cuboctahedron 5-compound. The values of the Cartesians of the 20-group

are 7+1, which may make the 7+1 integral octonians ideally powerful for exploitation. Of

course, the E8 vector algebra is deeply based on the octonians. But, just as the root vector

lattice is transformed into the QSN, so too are each of the integral octonions transformed

under the AB = P transform action. The octonian based analogue of icosian calculous we might

need could be called C5C calculous for “cuboctahedron 5-compound calculous”. Anyone looking

for deep mathematical insights into this calculous must come to learn how to exploit the fact

that 2J +P = ArcCos½. The basis of this exploration is here and here. J is the angle by which you

rotate a tetrahedron in an evenly spaced 5-group of tetrahedra sharing a common edge on an

axis running from the outer edge through the centroid and to the center of the opposing

perpendicular edge. This is one of the two classes of axes of symmetry of the tetrahedron. This

angle is (ArcCos ¼ - ArcCos -½ )/2. This reduces the number of parallel plane classes to 10 and

closes all gaps. It generates the angel P, as ArcCos ¼ - ArcCos ½. Or we can take two tetrahedra

with kissing and coincident faces and rotate via P along the remaining class of symmetry axes,

which is the axis running through a vertex through the centroid and to the opposing face

center. This generates J along the other axes. Although the two angles are irrational, the sum of

J+J+P = 60°. Think of the C5C calculous as allowing various vector algebraic circuits to dance

between the sets of five A3 = D3 root vector polytope to form various Hamiltonian and Eulerian

circuits.

The second reason we don’t project E8 directly to 3D is because we desire the additional sign

value that results, a chiral sign value as right or left. This will reveal itself to be crucial soon.

And how does the QSN relate to anyons versus an ordinary E8 to 3D projection? My intuition on

this is based on the hexagonal relationship of the cuboctahedral 5ths of each 20-group, which

composite in groups of five to form the pentagonal association of the 20-group as a whole.

Here, Paredes comments, “For an anyon model to exist its fusion and braiding rules cannot be

arbitrary. They have to fulfill a collection of consistency conditions which can be written as a set

of equations, known as the Pentagon and Hexagon equations. An anyon model is therefore a

solution of these equations.” As opposed to a textbook, that overview article and this one are

highly recommended as an introduction to the motivation and basics of anyon quasiparticles.

A modern father of knot and braid theory is Louis Kauffman. He said of Fibonacci anyons,

“Remarkably, this primitive Fibonacci particle takes part in a braided tensor category that

generates a unitary representation of the Artin braid group that is dense in the unitary groups.

This representation can be used for universal topological quantum computation and for

studying quantum algorithms that compute Jones polynomials.”

With respect to the topology of the unitary group, the set of all n × n complex matrices is

homeomorphic to a 2n2-dimensional Euclidean space. Where n = 2, we may consider the 8

vectors of R8 and attempt to relate this to the 8 + 240 dimensional E8 Lie algebra. The Wikipedia

article on the unitary group says something interesting, “…the splitting of U(n) as a semidirect

product of SU(n) and U(1) induces a topological product structure on U(n), so that…

…

So far in this anyon section, I’m giving you my intuitions. Consider them as puzzle pieces for you

to figure out how to assemble and make more sense of them. However, I will provide

something more than an intuition. Anyons are abstract quasiparticles playing out in 2D.

However, there are 3D anyons. This document is a good thing to study. And there are 3D

anyon-based quasiparticles as composites of quantum correlated interacting planes of 2D

anyons.

Paredes, in the above link, said, “…an anyon can be identified with an irreducible

representation of the group of braids… …its non-Abelian character is a natural consequence of

the composition of braids being non-commutative.” 3D is special because it’s the only

dimension knots can exist in. Knot and braid theory are both deeply associated with anyon

formalism.

Pretend the AB = P solution space is physically realistic. If it is, then the first principles physical

explanation for the mathematical predictive power of the anyon formalism is based deeply on

the 8D projection window to boundary window relationships and their transformations to the P

solution space. I want to know this geometric isomorphism explanation for anyons before the

tensor network isomorphism. The geometric version is less computation friendly for our

simulation purposes on computers. But it provides the deep first principles foundation

necessary for articulating the proper algebraic restrictions of the tensor network form of the AB

= P solution space. One can implement the fusion rules in 2D with a very abstract notion of

“over” and “under” and helicity. However, if these quantum statistical particles have their

origins in the hyper-Euclidean vector algebra E8, is there a less abstract geometric notion of

over, under and handedness?

Here’s part of my intuition on this. Consider a cube in 3D on the left. Don’t imagine it yet as a

projection. The red circle is closer to you than the blue. From your perspective, you might say,

the red is over or on top of the plane where the blue circle is. On the right, we show the other

sides of the cube. But now let us allow the representation to be a projection transform on the

plane. Even though we have a 2D object, we can make a labeling scheme that correspond the

edge cross point near the “over” and “under” words to be labeled abstractly with the notion of

“over” and “under” in order to give diagrammatic information about the actual absolute

relationship of the pre-transformed edges relative to the projective plane.

I presume the projective geometric approach of QGR to be sharply on the right track. And it is

clear that anyon theory, with its abstract over/under braid theoretic fusion rules, is the

irreducible way to understand quantum topological net quasiparticles. Therefore, the absolute

pre-transformed over/under values of our edges and vertices in the hyper-lattice relative to the

perpendicular space must deeply make contact with the anyon formalism. Someone open to

my intuition on this subject and able to think deeply, creatively and rigorously must try to work

it out.

THE EMPIRE WAVE

The last important puzzle piece of our spacetime code discrete quantum field theory program is

the empire wave. We can derive the algebraic possibility space of sequences of AB = P

solutions, each forming various patterns, some physically realistic and others not. However,

there is probably no way our program can proceed without a clear understanding and, to start,

a toy simulation of the empire wave. This is a statistical evolution of a topological quasiparticle

in the QSN, where probability amplitude or statistical weightings are based strictly on the

principle of least computational action. To more deeply decompose my explanation for our

quantum clocks, it is highly recommended to carefully study the presentation Quantum Clocks –

Let’s Get Physical and to secure one-on-one time with me to satisfy all ambiguities that you will

inevitably have from the review.