I found this fascinating! Unitarity does seem to suggest that the future somehow equals the past, which does seem to leave a bit of explaining to do (why would time exist/happen at all?) I also like the way that the new 'isometry' method resolves this by extending into a new dimension. It reminds me of the idea of the self-organisation of space (from previously dimensionless information) proposed by process-physics back in the 90s.
I'm not a physicist, but I read some of Reg Cahill's papers a long time ago when they got a mention in some science magazine. The video in a sibling comment is the same thing.
It's definitely a fringe physics, but my (perhaps old and faulty?) crackpot-meter hasn't gone off yet! (although regular physicists seem to dismiss it quite freely).
Reg's page doesn't seem to link to the old stuff any more like it used to:
I'm not a strong proponent of it or anything but I just liked the overall philosophical replacement of objects with change/relation as the core thing and also especially the idea that space itself could have self-organized out of something more primordial (ie less structured/dimensional).
Recently stumbled on the "process philosophy" concept and it means something in the lines of: the world is not made up by entities, but it's made up from dynamic transformations.
Basically the world doesn't have matter at its base, but processes.
It's still an idea in progress of being understood for me, but seems quite cool stuff.
I heard it being mentioned that it might be linked with quantum field theory and somehow with string theory also, but I didn't yet understand how.
Process Physics does include some initial ideas/structures that do feel a bit like functional programming I agree but I think that actually it swings far away from that once the rubber of the idea (speculatively, of course) hits the road.
Specifically the way that it explicitly avoids using syntactic information (ie anything symbolic (like how space is symbolic in the standard model)) and instead models the universe with only semantic (indeed ultimately self-referential) information instead. This is curiously similar to Neural-networks where the details of how it arrives at a result may be very well hidden in the details of the entire behavior of the network. A framework to think about bootstrapping the universe when there was no universe before is kinda a major component of the whole PP thing in my opinion.
This does seem to move the idea to a quite different realm than FP in my opinion. (maybe just a point of view thing?), but I imagine it more like some incredibly-infinitely parallel process like GOL/reaction-diffusion (without the virtual aspect we usually have with our normal computers) or even something more turing-machine-like (anything with turing-universal compute-capability can follow rules, right?)
I'm not trying to sound authoritative about this at all! I am certainly not a physicist (Visual Effects Artist/Pipeline/Teacher!), this is just something I took an interest in and I don't think it got anything approaching the reception that it perhaps could've had if there were a little more open-minded-ness and willingness to take conceptual leaps, in the surrounding academic community.
I tried reading your text a few times, but I didn't yet completely understood your point. Will give it a few days and come back with a tentative at describing my own opinion.
(writing this with the intention of informing you that this piece of content you wrote is appreciated by at least one person on earth at this point in time)
some googling led me to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEAztJdKN88
not sure if it's the one mentioned by GP. the channel that posted this video seems to have others on the subject.
