Actual foundations of physical reality and life

I hope that one of you actually has a real interest in trying to find out what the real ultimate "law of everything" for our cosmos -- the underlying laws of physics -- might actually be. Just in case, I am writing down a few key points about the best we can really know from the best in math and science NOW. 

 Since 2019, I HAVE tried to give youtube talks and other summary overviews making a few very basic points, as in http://www.werbos.com/mind_brain_soul.htm. I made three key points there: 

 (1) Contrary to popular belief (which basically denies reality altogether), Hard Core Einsteinian Realism still fits ALL of the information available from science (and even PSI). So far as we really know, we may yet be living in a curved Minkowski space, following equations given in Moshe Carmeli's book Classical Fields. The main problem with that is the many challenges in CONNECTING those fundamental equations to the more macroscopic world and experience we actually try to cope with.

(2) For practical purposes -- the next big advance possible in hard core physics is in empirical quantum optics, supporting a LARGE stream of new possibilities for Quantum Information S&T (QuIST), all of which can be grounded in the Everett theory of physics (as later implemented by David Deutsch, for quantum computing). This DOES require more work in how to model the macroscopic objects used in experiments, as we have discussed with Yeshua many many times, but it still relies on the theory that psi dot = i H psi governs everything in our cosmos. See https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772941922000011 for a review of that stream of new possibilities. 

 (3) MOST IMPORTANT TO THESE LISTS: the phenomena of life and mind are basically just EMERGENT phenomena, as described in the draft paper Approximation3. (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xYsM5O2K0oszjrA2Psq08v5mpfiaT_Yd/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=106196437506611684133&rtpof=true&sd=true ) THIS MEANS THAT all of our real universal understanding of these phenomena is based on various "frameworks" or approximation schemes, whose value is totally dependent on how well they approximate the behavior of the probability distributions which emerge either from the dynamical system psi dot = i H psi, or from the Carmeli type of dynamical system. For the Everett system, this means the grand canonical Boltzmann density operator, as given in Chaikin's book and elsewhere. For a very broad subset of the Carmeli types of system, it means the entropy function which I derived in my paper in cond-mat at arxiv years ago. I usually insert lots of caveats, but this is where my discussion ends, because I have little contact lately with the people who might build usefully beyond this basic story, and implementing the story. (e.g. a caveat: I bcc folks who may take us beyond curved Minowski space to differential geometries Einstein pioneered in later life, but we have a lot of work to do at a shallower level than that. ) 

 BUT: a few of the loose ends out there remind me of the larger story, and demand that I address some further details. First: DOES THE ALTERNATE HISTORIES VIEW OF PHYSICS CHANGE ANYTHING VERSUS EVERETT, AND IF SO WHAT? 

 There has been a lot of excitement about "entangled histories". For example, see http://frankwilczek.com/2016/GHZ-test-for-entangled-histories_v17.pdf, the seminal empirical work by Wilczek and Tsinghua et al demonstrating entanglement ACROSS TIME. This has huge implications not only for technology but for PSI. "We are not drinking from a firehose. We are sipping from a gigantic ocean in four dimensions." This is important in a practical sense, for our life and technology, but does it change the underlying physics? The HCER foundation ALREADY treats time as "just another dimension," but how do we connect that to technology and life and such? The attached paper on 4D Fock space gives part of the answer. Frankly, I was surprised to see that paper buried in my file as I started writing this email. ( https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MR9GqvsXuc1Zs9aPeiCek4pk1EuU_Cwk/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=106196437506611684133&rtpof=true&sd=true ) It cites some of the obvious bits of prior work, such as the 4D Fock space version of how to derive the statistical scattering matrices predicted by what Scully, Wigner and O'Connell called "distribution functions", mappings from statistical ensembles of classical fields to density operators in 4D Fock space. 

 For QED (with non normalized photons) , this basically changes nothing from the story I summarized at first above. But the dynamic operator H can change a bit with nonlinear boson fields underneath, as the previous papers I cite described. THIS CHANGES the grand canonical Boltzmann operator to use the updated version of the dynamic operator. Strictly speaking then, that implies a modified Boltzmann operator for the 4D Fock space case, which is then strictly equivalent to the predictions of HCER. And so, a full complete version of the Approximation3 paper would also show you all that Boltzmann operator. What does that change for life, mind and technology?

 Well, just another level beyond https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772941922000011 and something to consider in upgrading the attached Approximation3 to a more complete paper (and field of research). A field of research? Well, the unification of our understanding of all emergent phenomena would be worthy of that.