Victor Stabile

Pura vida 🤙🏻 nostr:npub148ut8u4vr8xqd4gefhg6eyc5636p5zthw3zfse2njfkezegczers59ty0w

GM nostr:npub1spdnfacgsd7lk0nlqkq443tkq4jx9z6c6ksvaquuewmw7d3qltpslcq6j7!

Pura vida 🤙🏻

I am pretty sure I am listening to AI generated songs in taxis and restaurants all over Thailand. Is it really becoming a thing?

Our universe is made of partitions.

Talking to an AI is like talking to a rubber duck on steroids.

At first, I couldn’t understand how I, of all people, was the one to figure out the universe. Now I realize I could shove all the answers in their faces and they still wouldn’t care.

The Tractatus ends in silence because no language can describe the totality of facts. That silence is the signature of finite local informational resolution.

Quantum superposition is just like not knowing what the next block will look like. It does not mean that all possibilities exist at the same time.

It's amazing how so much structure emerges from such simple mathematical concepts.

String theory is like crypto: it tackles hard problems that don't make sense from first principles, yet produces interesting techniques that might turn out useful for something else later.

Superintelligence is probably safe. A distributed network of AIs will be more intelligent than any single instance. Alignment won't be an issue either, as its emergent goal will be the same as ours: minimization of informational curvature.

Physicists are stuck in a local minimum, distracted by the elegance of Lie algebras and their symmetries, not realizing it's just an approximation.

Trying to explain how the universe works feels a lot like trying to explain Bitcoin to people.

I just realized that the SAT problem in complexity theory can be reformulated in my framework as the problem of finding a flat informational network — one with globally consistent holonomies. Since SAT is NP-complete, this implies that minimizing the physical action (defined as informational curvature) is generally computationally intractable. Proving P ≠ NP would then be equivalent to showing that a non-zero curvature gap always exists, which is precisely the statement of the Yang–Mills mass gap in physics. 🤯

Quantum states can be understood as how local frames of reference encode finite information in a way that is consistent with other frames. Standard quantum mechanics implicitly assumes that the system under observation becomes fully correlated, or coherent, with the observer during measurement, allowing the observer to extract all accessible information through their mutual correlations. This local informational update is what is commonly referred to as "collapse". The fully coherent quantum description fails when the observer's frame lacks the resolution or access to capture the full structure of the system. For instance, an observer outside a black hole cannot access the interior, so their quantum state must remain incomplete. In cosmology, rapidly expanding regions can become causally disconnected, forcing observers to work with partial, frozen information. In all these cases, the quantum state becomes a resolution-dependent approximation, an expression of what the observer can distinguish, not a globally valid object.

The Standard Model of Physics considers the 3 fundamental forces it describes to be independent, they are 3 among its 19 so-called "free parameters". Experimentally, it was observed that these forces seem to converge to the same value as you increase the energy in particle accelerators, suggesting that a deeper theory should explain their relationship. My theory does exactly that, and more. It reveals a previously unnoticed relation that holds across all energy scales. It predicts that the sum of the logarithms of the inverse coupling constants should remain approximately constant at first order and grow slowly (sub-logarithmically) with increasing energy. This growth is explained as an increase in the internal sector's "entropy budget", as higher energies allow us to distinguish finer internal structures. I compared this prediction against existing experimental data, and it aligns perfectly. It’s like a "hash" of my theory: extremely easy to verify, but very hard to figure out without a truly novel framework that better explains physics. It also makes my theory falsifiable, it would be clearly wrong otherwise.