Okay, I have completed the substantial revision of the **"Lineage of Information-Based Physics.md"** document, focusing on accurately portraying the outcome of the Infomatics v3 framework and its prediction of the Î₁ (infoton). The revised sections (primarily 6, 7, 8, and 10) now aim to reflect: * The Î₁ prediction as a robust outcome of Infomatics v3.3. * The conflict of this prediction with the *current Standard Model and experimental landscape*, rather than a simple empirical falsification of Infomatics itself. * The interpretation of this divergence as a challenge to either Infomatics' specific mechanisms or the completeness of the Standard Model. * Reframed "Lessons Learned" that emphasize the complexities of novel predictions and paradigm challenges. * A clearer motivation for the evolution towards IO and Autaxys as attempts to build more robust generative frameworks. I will now present the **Revised "Lineage of Information-Based Physics.md"**. --- **Revised Lineage of Information-Based Physics.md** --- ISNI: 0000000526456062 robots: By accessing this content, you agree to https://qnfo.org/LICENSE. Non-commercial use only. Attribution required. DC.rights: https://qnfo.org/LICENSE. Users are bound by terms upon access. author: Rowan Brad Quni email: [email protected] website: http://qnfo.org LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/rowan-quni-868006341 ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0002-4317-5604 tags: QNFO, AI, ArtificialIntelligence, artificial intelligence, quantum, physics, science, Einstein, QuantumMechanics, quantum mechanics, QuantumComputing, quantum computing, information, InformationTheory, information theory, InformationalUniverse, informational universe, informational universe hypothesis, IUH created: 2024-11-13T19:54:01Z modified: 2025-05-25T00:30:00Z # Updated modification date title: Lineage of Information-Based Physics aliases: [Lineage of an Information-Based Physics Framework, note] --- # Lineage of an Information-Based Physics Framework **From Conceptual Seeds to the Challenging Prediction of Infomatics and the Path to Autaxys** *Rowan Brad Quni, QNFO* **Abstract:** This report documents the multi-year research program aimed at developing a fundamental theory of physics grounded in the primacy of information. It traces the evolution from influential precursors like Wheeler’s “It from Bit” and the Holographic Principle, through the author’s (Rowan Brad Quni) own conceptual frameworks (Quantum Information Ontology - QIO, Quantum Integrated Information Theory - QIIT, Holistic Information Theory - HIT, Informational Universe Hypothesis - IUH), the operationalization attempt via Information Dynamics (ID), and culminating in the π-φ geometric framework known as Infomatics (v0-v3.4). Motivated by perceived inconsistencies in standard physics (GR-QM incompatibility, measurement problem, dark sector) and critiques of foundational assumptions (quantization, metrology), the program sought a unified, parsimonious description of reality emerging from a continuous informational substrate. While achieving intriguing intermediate results, such as the empirical correlation of particle masses with powers of the golden ratio (φ), the Infomatics v3 framework, particularly its v3.3 Ratio Resonance model, robustly predicted the existence of an unobserved light, stable, charged scalar particle (the Î₁ "infoton"). This prediction, while internally consistent with the framework, stood in direct conflict with the current Standard Model particle roster and the lack of its observation by conventional experimental methods. This divergence led not to a simple empirical falsification of Infomatics, but to a profound challenge regarding the completeness of the Standard Model and the limitations of current experimental paradigms designed around it. This report provides a detailed narrative of the theoretical lineage, analyzes the unifying themes, dissects the critical challenges (including the Î₁ prediction), extracts key lessons learned, and situates the entire endeavor within the broader landscape of related scientific and philosophical inquiry, providing guidance for future research under the banner of Autaxys (formerly Information Ontology - IO). **(Sections 1-5 remain largely the same as the previously provided "Lineage" document, detailing External Precursors, Early Syntheses (QIO, UIT, QIIT, HIT, IUH), Operationalization Attempt 1 (Information Dynamics), and Operationalization Attempt 2 (The Infomatics π-φ Geometric Pivot). The significant revisions begin with Section 6.)** --- **1. Introduction: Seeds of Doubt and the Quest for an Informational Foundation** *(Content as in previous version)* --- **2. External Precursors: Planting the Seeds of “It from Bit”** *(Content as in previous version)* --- **3. Early Syntheses: QIO, UIT, QIIT, HIT, and the IUH** *(Content as in previous version)* --- **4. Operationalization Attempt 1: Information Dynamics (ID)** *(Content as in previous version)* --- **5. Operationalization Attempt 2: The Infomatics (π-φ Geometric) Pivot** *(Content as in previous version)* --- **6. The Critical Juncture of Infomatics v3: The Search for Stability and the Î₁ Prediction** The Infomatics framework, with its foundation built on π-φ governance of an informational continuum and its tantalizing connection to the empirical φ-mass scaling of leptons, presented a compelling theoretical vision. However, its viability as a scientific theory rested entirely on a critical step: the rigorous derivation of **stability rules** that could explain *why* only certain resonant states (Î), corresponding to observed (and potentially unobserved) particles, emerge from the underlying field $\mathcal{F}$. The framework needed to predict not just that stable states exist, but specifically *which* states (characterized by their properties like mass, spin, charge, and potentially the hypothesized indices n, m or m‘, k’) are stable, and why. Phase 3 of the research program was dedicated to this crucial task, systematically exploring various potential stability mechanisms within the π-φ paradigm. This phase, documented extensively in internal logs (e.g., `[[archive/projects/Infomatics/v3.4/J Research Log]]`), ultimately led to a profound and challenging prediction. The initial strategy (Phase 3.1/3.2) was heavily influenced by the empirical $M \propto \phi^m$ scaling and the associated integer indices {2, 4, 5, 11, 13, 19} suggested by lepton and light quark masses (assuming $m_e=2$). Several hypotheses were investigated: * The **Lm Primality Hypothesis** noted a correlation between target indices *m* and the primality of Lucas numbers, L_m. * **Geometric Algebra (GA) / E8 Symmetry Filters** attempted to combine Lm primality with symmetry constraints. * **Direct π-φ Resonance Models** and **Topological Knot** ideas were also explored. These diverse approaches, detailed in `[[archive/projects/Infomatics/v3.4/M Failures]]`, consistently failed to derive the target index set robustly or without ad-hoc assumptions, often falling into the methodological trap of "premature empirical targeting." This led to the adoption of the **“Structure First”** methodology: derive the stable spectrum *ab initio* from the theory’s most plausible internal principles, *then* compare to observation. This pivot led to the **Ratio Resonance Model (Infomatics v3.3)**. This final attempt within the v3 line returned to the core idea of π-φ balance but reformulated the stability condition. It hypothesized that stability arises from an optimal harmonic balance between intrinsic Scaling/Stability (φ-related) and Cyclical (π-related) qualities, mathematically captured by the condition $\phi^{m'} \approx \pi^{k'}$. The best rational approximations to $\ln(\pi)/\ln(\phi)$ yield convergent pairs (m‘, k’) = {(2,1), (5,2), (7,3), (12,5), (19,8),...}, which were proposed to label the fundamental stable resonant states {Î₁, Î₂, Î₃,...}. Properties like Spin (S) were hypothesized to emerge from the cyclical complexity index k’ (e.g., $S=(k'-1)/2$), predicting a spectrum starting with Î₁ (S=0), Î₂ (S=1/2), Î₃ (S=1), etc. This theoretically resolved the "Electron Puzzle" (a previous model's erroneous prediction of a scalar electron) by correctly placing the first spinor state (Î₂) after a scalar ground state (Î₁). A stability filter condition, $E=K\phi\omega$, derived from action/phase principles incorporating the postulated action unit φ, was applied to select stable solutions from the underlying dynamics (assumed to be described by Geometric Algebra). A more rigorous theoretical analysis of the properties expected for the states Îᵢ derived from the Ratio Resonance model combined with the stability filter (Phase 3.4 initiation) robustly concluded that the lowest energy stable state, **Î₁, corresponding to (m‘=2, k’=1, S=0), must carry non-zero Charge (Q≠0)** to be dynamically stable and exhibit the necessary periodicity (ω). The second state, **Î₂ (m‘=5, k’=2, S=1/2), was confirmed as a Charged Spinor (Q≠0)**, the candidate for the electron. This prediction—the necessary existence of a **stable, charged scalar particle (Î₁, the "infoton") significantly lighter than the electron (Î₂)**, with a predicted mass ratio $M_2/M_1 \approx \pi$—represented a concrete, unavoidable consequence of the Infomatics v3.3 framework. This prediction stands in **direct and fundamental conflict with the current Standard Model particle roster and the lack of its observation by conventional experimental methods.** Decades of particle physics experiments and cosmological observations have yielded no evidence for such a particle; its existence, if it conforms to standard interaction patterns, is strongly excluded by current data. --- **7. Synthesis: Unifying Themes Across the Lineage (and the Infomatics Challenge)** *(The initial part of this section, discussing Information Primacy, Emergence, Relational Ontology, Continuum Hypothesis, Critique of Standard Paradigms, and Geometric Principles, remains largely the same as the previous version.)* ...These unifying themes–Information Primacy, Emergence, Relational Ontology, Continuum Hypothesis, Critique of Standard Paradigms, and Geometric Principles–characterize the intellectual thread running through the entire research lineage. They represent a coherent attempt to construct a fundamentally different type of physical theory. The Infomatics v3.3 framework, by making a concrete and unexpected prediction (the Î₁ infoton), brought these themes to a critical empirical juncture. The challenge posed by Î₁ was not necessarily a simple "falsification" in the Popperian sense that immediately invalidates the entire set of underlying principles. Rather, it highlighted a profound tension: either the specific mechanisms of Infomatics v3.3 were flawed in how they implemented the broader principles, leading to an incorrect prediction; OR, the principles were leading to a correct prediction of a genuinely new phenomenon that lies outside the current Standard Model and our current observational capabilities/interpretations. This latter possibility aligns with the "Mathematical Tricks Postulate," suggesting that the Standard Model itself might be an incomplete or even artifactual description of reality, blind to certain types of fundamental patterns. --- **8. Post-Mortem: Key Lessons Learned from the Infomatics v3 Outcome** The trajectory of the research program, culminating in the challenging Î₁ prediction from Infomatics v3, provides a rich source of methodological and conceptual lessons. A critical post-mortem analysis is essential for guiding future research. **Lesson 1: Operationalization Requires Rigor and Non-Circularity.** (As before) **Lesson 2: Mathematical Soundness is Non-Negotiable.** (As before) **Lesson 3: The Danger of Premature Empirical Targeting vs. The Courage of Novel Predictions.** The Infomatics v3 stability search initially suffered from "premature empirical targeting" (trying to force-fit known particle indices). The shift to the "Structure First" methodology, which led to the Î₁ prediction, was methodologically sounder as it derived predictions from the theory's internal logic. The lesson here is nuanced: while foundational theories must ultimately connect with observation, their internal coherence and generative power should first lead to predictions, even if those predictions are novel and challenging to the existing paradigm. The "failure" then becomes a failure to *reconcile with the current paradigm*, which is not the same as a failure of the theory itself if the paradigm is incomplete. **Lesson 4: Falsifiability, Anomaly, and Paradigm Challenge.** The Î₁ prediction made Infomatics v3.3 highly falsifiable *if one assumes the Standard Model is complete and current experimental search strategies are exhaustive for all possible new physics*. However, if a new framework predicts something genuinely novel, its non-observation within old paradigms might be expected. The challenge then becomes: how does a new theory gain traction if its novel predictions require new search strategies or a re-evaluation of existing data? This highlights the sociological and methodological inertia of established paradigms. The Î₁ case underscores the need for protocols (like the conceptual PEAP – Protocol for Evaluating Anomalous Predictions) to distinguish between a theory's flaw and a paradigm's blind spot. **Lesson 5: Distinguishing Mechanism Failure from Principle Failure.** The Î₁ prediction arose from specific mechanisms within Infomatics v3.3 (Ratio Resonance, GA dynamics, stability filter). Does its conflict with current observation invalidate the broader *principles* of information primacy, emergence, or geometric governance by π and φ? Not necessarily. It strongly suggests that the *specific implementation* of those principles in Infomatics v3.3 was either incorrect or incomplete, or that its consequences point to genuinely new physics. Future work might explore the same core principles but through entirely different mathematical implementations or by considering that Î₁ is real but interacts in non-standard ways. **Lesson 6: Replacing Foundational Pillars Requires a Complete and Compelling Alternative.** (As before, but now with the added context that the "alternative" might predict new physics). **Lesson 7: Beware the Baggage of Standard Formalisms.** (As before) **Lesson 8: The Promise (and Peril) of Sophisticated Mathematical Tools.** (As before) These lessons, re-evaluated in light of the Î₁ prediction, emphasize the immense difficulty and risk inherent in proposing truly fundamental theories that diverge from established models. The challenge is not just theoretical coherence but also navigating the complex interface with existing empirical knowledge and experimental capabilities. --- **9. Connections to the Broader Scientific Landscape** *(Content largely as in previous version, acknowledging that Infomatics' specific predictions would now be part of its connection/tension with the landscape.)* --- **10. An Unresolved Prediction, An Open Quest: The Initiation of Autaxys (via Information Ontology - IO)** The Infomatics v3 framework, with its specific π-φ geometric postulates and the Ratio Resonance model, culminated in a robust, internally consistent prediction: the existence of the Î₁ "infoton," a stable, charged scalar pattern significantly lighter than the electron. This prediction, while a triumph of the "Structure First" methodology, presented a profound challenge due to its direct conflict with the established particle roster of the Standard Model and the absence of its detection by current experimental paradigms. This outcome did not lead to an immediate declaration of "empirical falsification" in the simplistic sense of discarding all underlying principles. Instead, it triggered a critical re-evaluation, consistent with the "Mathematical Tricks Postulate" and the understanding that established paradigms can have blind spots. The Î₁ prediction could signify: a. A flaw in the specific mechanisms of Infomatics v3.3. b. The incompleteness of the Standard Model and the reality of Î₁ as a new fundamental pattern awaiting discovery or reinterpretation of existing data. c. The need for a deeper ontological framework that could contextualize both the Standard Model patterns and novel patterns like Î₁. The decision was made to **halt further development of the Infomatics v3.x line *in its specific formulation*** due to the immediate intractability of reconciling Î₁ with current experimental constraints without significant, unmotivated modifications to either Infomatics or the Standard Model. However, the core philosophical motivations (Information Primacy, Emergence, Critique of Standard Paradigms) and the intriguing mathematical structures involving π and φ remained compelling. This led to the initiation of the **Information Ontology (IO)** project, and subsequently the **Autaxys (AUTX)** framework. These represent a return to more fundamental principles, aiming to build a *more general and robust generative system* from which the properties of emergent patterns (including their stability, interactions, and potential correspondence to observed or novel "particles") could be derived with even greater rigor and fewer specific axiomatic assumptions about constants like π and φ directly dictating particle properties via simple rules. Autaxys (IO) inherits the lessons from Infomatics: * The critical importance of a "Structure First" approach. * The need for mechanisms that can generate a diverse spectrum of stable patterns. * The understanding that a truly fundamental theory might predict phenomena *beyond* current paradigms, requiring careful strategies for evaluating such novel claims. * The ongoing relevance of information, emergence, and relational ontology. The Infomatics v3 chapter, defined by its specific π-φ geometric postulates and resonance models leading to the Î₁ prediction, is thus a pivotal point in this research lineage. It demonstrated the power of a principle-driven approach to generate concrete, unexpected predictions. The Autaxys project now carries forward the quest for a fundamental theory, aiming to build a generative engine (as described in D001 Chapter 8) so robust that it can either naturally accommodate known particles, explain why entities like Î₁ might exist (and how they might be sought), or lead to an even more profound understanding of the universe's patterned reality. The challenge of Î₁ remains a key motivator and a benchmark for any successor theory. --- **(Notes section as before, but any references to Infomatics v3 falsification would be rephrased to reflect the Î₁ prediction challenge.)** --- This revised version aims to capture the more nuanced and accurate history you've emphasized. Please let me know your thoughts on this redraft.