You are on page 1of 14

Idiomaterial Universe:

The UNUM as Monoidal Category of

Objects and Morphisms as Continuum
Multileveled Manifold A Work in
Progress of Needed Mathematics and
Problems Ahead

A.. R
R.. B
LLiiffee P
Phhyyssiiccss G
upp -- C
onn,, M
Maayy 2
d JJu
ullyy,, 2

maatteerriiaall U
Un niiv
Thhee U
UN NU UM M aass M Moon nooiid daall C
Caatteeggoorryy ooff OOb bjjeeccttss aan
Moorrp phhiissmmss aass C Coonnttiin
nuuu um mM Mu ullttiilleev
veelleed d
d A AW Woorrk k iinnP Prrooggrreessss ooff tthhee NNeeeed deedd
Maatthheem maattiiccss aan
nd dP Prroobblleem
mss A Ah heeaad d
A.. R
R.. B
LLiiffee P
Phhyyssiiccss G
upp -- C

Category theory is a very general formalism, but there is a certain special way that
physicists use categories which turns out to have close analogues in topology, logic and
computation (1). A category has objects and morphisms, which represent things and ways to go
between things. In physics, the objects are often physical systems, and the morphisms are
processes turning a state of one physical system into a state of another system | perhaps the same
one. In quantum physics we often formalize this by taking Hilbert spaces as objects, and linear
operators as morphisms.
Sometime around 1949, Feynman [52] realized
that in quantum field theory it is useful to draw linear
operators as diagrams (see figure on this page).
This lets us reason with them pictorially. We
can warp a picture without changing the operator it
stands for: all that matters is the topology, not the
geometry. In the 1970s, Penrose realized that
generalizations of Feynman diagrams arise throughout
quantum theory, and might even lead to revisions in our
understanding of spacetime [71]. In the 1980s, it
became clear that underlying these diagrams is a powerful analogy between quantum physics and
topology! Namely, a linear operator behaves very much like a `cobordism' | that is, an n-
dimensional manifold going between manifolds of one dimension less.

Quite separately, logicians had begun using categories where the objects represent
propositions and the morphisms represent proofs. The idea is that a proof is a process going from
one proposition (the hypothesis) to another (the conclusion).
Later, computer scientists started using categories where the objects represent data types
and the morphisms represent programs. They also started using `ow charts' to describe programs.
Abstractly, these are very much like Feynman diagrams!
The logicians and computer scientists were never very far from each other. Indeed, the
`Curry-Howard correspondence' relating proofs to programs has been well-known at least since
the early 1970s, with roots stretching back earlier [33, 48]. But, it is only in the 1990s that the
logicians and computer scientists bumped into the physicists and topologists. One reason is the
rise of interest in quantum cryptography and quantum computation [26]. With this, people begain
to think of quantum processes as forms of information processing, and apply ideas from
computer science. It was then realized that the loose analogy between between flow charts and
Feynman diagrams could be made more precise and powerful with the aid of category theory [3].
By now there is an extensive network of interlocking analogies between physics,
topology, logic and computer science. They suggest that research in the area of common overlap
is actually trying to build a new science: a general science of systems and processes. Building
this science will be very difficult. There are good reasons for this, but also bad ones. One bad
reason is that different fields use different terminology and notation. So what is it that was
needed to get everyone speaking out of the same page? A new Rosetta Stone one that would
bring together physicists, logicians/mathematicians, computer scientists, information scientists,
and topologists together. John Baez and Mike Stay built us a new one:

At present, the deductive systems in mathematical logic look like

hieroglyphs to most physicists. Similarly, quantum field theory is Greek to
most computer scientists, and so on. So, there is a need for a new Rosetta
Stone to aid researchers attempting to translate between fields.

What would it look like? They offered a table in their 2008 essay as Table 1. We reproduce it
below to show their guess as to what this Rosetta Stone might look like.

Category Theory Physics Topology Logic Computation

object system manifold proposition data type

morphism process cobordism proof program

Table 1: John Baez and Mike Stays Rosetta Stone

These different fields focus on slightly different kinds of categories. Though most physicists
don't know it, quantum physics has long made use of `compact symmetric monoidal categories'.
Knot theory uses `compact braided monoidal categories', which are slightly more general.
However, it became clear in the 1990's that these more general gadgets are useful in physics too.
Logic and computer science used to focus on `cartesian closed categories.' However, thanks to
work on linear logic and quantum computation, some logicians and computer scientists have

dropped their insistence on cartesianness: now they study more general sorts of `closed
symmetric monoidal categories'.

Grraavviittyy:: A
ADDoooorr ttoo tth
hee U
We agree with Baez and Stay on the following: something is schizophrenic in Kansas,
Toto. But it is not our worldview, we dont need help with that; it is the paradigm share by
scientists. But thats were they stop and we continue. General relativity and the Standard Model
are no longer enough, nor do they account for all forces in the swell scoop attempted by grand
unified theories valiantly attempting to make whole what is profoundly ripped at the theoretical
seams. Current struggles by theoreticians lie in quantum gravity, where a solution demands that
gravity be treated in a way that it is that it is a quantal phenomenon, in so many words. In other
words, it must take quantum theory into account. Right now, the two contenders on the ring (no
pun intended) have their champions lined up at center square: they are physicists who theorize
about loop quantum gravity and about strings.
Interestingly, both string theory and loop quantum gravity theory, as Baez and Stay tell us
in a broadbrush of exquisitely clear conceptual pictures, call upon analogies between physics and
topology that they distilled in a second table; here we are going to again borrow their useful
framework, but with a modification, as you will see. Lets now place the table forth for

Physics Topology

Hilbert space (n - 1)-dimensional manifold

(system) (space)

operator between cobordism between

Hilbert spaces (n - 1) dimensional manifolds
(process) (spacetime)

de Sitter space (n 1)-dimensional manifold

(system) (space)

operator between cobordism between

de Sitter spaces (n 1) dimensional manifolds
(process) (spacetime)

composition of operators composition of cobordisms

identity operator identity cobordism

Table 2: Physics and topology analogies

The elemental aspects of quantum theory (excluding de Sitter space, which we will consider as
elemental aspect of our Working Model of the Unum) are on the left - the category Hilb whose
objects are Hilbert spaces, used to describe physical systems, and whose morphisms are linear
operators, used to describe physical processes. The same is said of the category de Sit whose
objects are de Sitter spaces, used to describe physical systems, and whose morphisms are also
linear operators. On the right we have a basic structure in differential topology: the category
nCob. Here the objects are (n -1)-dimensional manifolds, used to describe spaces, and whose
morphisms are n-dimensional cobordisms, used to describe spacetime. Why de Sitter spaces as
well? Because our gnosive evidence shows that there are de Sitter spaces that host life. And there
is only one more thing I will mention here regarding spaces considered: gnosive evidence shows
us that de Sitter and Hilbert spaces behave more like nCob than Set, and therefore, we look at
Hilbert and de Sitter spaces as manifolds of varying dimensions, some with more spatial ones
than our reference spacetime, some with less; in our extensions spacelike and timelike, whenever
entering either or, it was like going from spacetimes of dimension one less to another of
dimension one more. Or vice versa.
Here we are not going to dwell on simple but practical means used by physicists to get a
handle in a spacetime, any spacetime. Instead, we are going to, as it were, go straight for the
jugular topological quantum field theory that uses higher dimensional cobordisms which can
be described by morphisms of a quite unique kind; these are categories that go by the name of
compact symmetric monoidal categories. Why? Well, we have now conceptual, gnosive, and
mathematical bases to suspect the Unum to be a symmetric monoidal category.

ngg S
nccee iin
n aa UUn niiqqu
uee S Syym mm meettrriicc M
maatteerriiaall O
Obbjjeeccttss C

Here, as already noted above, we are attempting to use analogies from physics, topology,
logic and computer science.
In day-to-day practice of quantum physics, what really matters is not sets of states and
functions between them, but Hilbert space and operators. One of the qualities of category theory
is that it frees us from the Set-centered perspective in traditional mathematics and lets us see
quantum physics and the Unum on its own terms. This places our understanding of the quantum
realm in a new light, extending our understanding of the realm of the Unum.
To avoid technical issues that would take us far afield, we will take Hilb to be the
category where objects are infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces and morphisms are linear
operators (automatically bounded in this case), with a healthy sprinkle of de Sitter spaces and
their morphisms also as bounded linear operators. Finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces suffice for
some purporses; infinite-dimensional ones are often important, but treating them correctly would
require some significant extensions of the ideas we want to explain here.
We are going to use categories where the objects represent choices of space, and the morphisms
represent choices of spacetime. The simplest is nCob, where the objects are (n - 1)-dimensional
manifolds, and the morphisms are n-dimensional cobordisms. For us here, we are going to treat a
cobordism f:X Y as an n-dimensional manifold whose boundary is the disjoint union of the
(n - 1)-dimensional manifolds X and Y.

We will also use another category of objects representing collections of particles, and
morphisms representing their worldlines and interactions. But, as the edges in Feynman diagrams
do not represent reality in Hilbert- and de Sitter spaces, we are not going to treat them as particle
trajectories; instead, we are
goint to treat them as objects
in Tangk or more simply put,
a collection of points in a k-
dimensional curved space.
The morphism then is a
tangle a collection of arcs
and circles smoothly
embedded in a (k + 1)-
dimensional sphere, such that
the circles lie in the interior
of the sphere, while the arcs
touch the boundary of the
sphere only at right angles,
and only at their boundary. A
bit more precisely, tangles are
isotopy classes of such
embedded arcs and circles,
meaning that as an
equivalence relation only the
topology of the tangle
matters, not its geometry. We
compose tangles by attaching
one sphere to another at
tangent top to bottom or side
to side. We can also compose tangles as resonant harmonics of each other, occupying the same
spacetime, as we shall see shortly.
Please take note that we can think of a morphism in Tangk as actually a multi-dimensional
cobordism embedded in a k-dimensional sphere. This is why Tangk and nCob behave similarly in
some respects. In applications to Unun and subquantum physics relative to a frame spacetime,
these curves represent worldlines of particles, and the arrows say whether each particle is going
forwards or backwards in time, following Feynman's idea that antiparticles are particles going
backwards in time. We can also consider `framed' tangles. Here each curve is replaced by a
`ribbon'. In applications to physics, this keeps track of how each particle twists. This is especially
important for fermions, where a 2 twist acts nontrivially. Mathematically, the best-behaved
tangles are both framed and oriented, and these are what we should use to define Tangk. The
category nCob also has a framed oriented version. However, these details will barely matter in
what is to come. It is difficult to do much with categories without discussing the maps between
them. A map between categories is called a functor, but here, again, we are moving onward, so
we will dispense with the discussion of maps between categories.

ngg S
nccee iin
n tth hee U
Unnuum m:: TToow waarrd d aa O
On nee SSyymmm meettrriicc
daall IId
maatteerriiaall O
Obbjjeecctt aass C
Caatteeggoorryy tth
haatt ccoon
Syym mm meettrriicc aan
nddAAssyym mm meettrriicc P

When we think of two systems, A and B, in physics, if they are sitting next to each other,
physicists find it convenient to think of them as a single system. Systemically, they form a single
system. Topologically, the rearticulated union of two manifold as one is again a manifold in it
own right. Logically, the conjunction of two separate statements is again a statement. In
programming, we can have a single product type out of two data streams or types. And the idea
of a monoidal category unifies them all into a single framework. Does it not?
It does.
To pursue this further,
please see (1). Here we will
explore briefly the way of doing
sience in the Unum as one
symmetric monoidal physical
object as category. To do so, we
need to see if the Unum is
amenable to being portrayed as a
model and described as a theory.
To do so, we need to base the
model on actual gnosive data sets
which have yielded useful
information from cumuli
interfaced since 2001. In (2) and
(3), we have presented first pass
information on which much of the
present Working Model, from
which we derive deciphered
information used here. The
graphic representation of the
model is given in Figure 1 left.
Here, we will use category theory
to build an open monoidal
idiomaterial object as category.
The gnosive evidence shows us a
Unum that consists what we yet
simply refer to as idiomaterial
substance that suffuses everything manifest by imbuing it with qualities and characteristics that
are self-consistent and completely integrated even in 4-space/time. We can then basically
postulate that everything we refer henceforth will be expressed as if everything occurred in a 3-
space, 1-time space/time ratio.
As such, we are proposing that everything in Figure 1 can be considered as (1) a
collection of objects, where if X is an object of C we write X C, and (2) for every pair of

objects (X, Y); a set hom(X, Y) of morphisms from X to Y. This set is called hom(X, Y ) a homset.
If hom(X, Y), then we write :X Y, such that: (3) for every object X there is an identity
morphism 1X: X X; (4) morphisms are composable: given f:X Y and g: Y Z; there is a
composite morphism g:X Z; sometimes also written g o . (5) an identity morphism is both
a left and a right unit for composition: if :X Y; then 1X = = 1 Y ; and (6) composition is
associative: (hg) = h(g) whenever either side is well-defined. A category is the simplest
framework where we can talk about systems (objects) and processes (morphisms). To visualize
these, we can use `Feynman diagrams' of a very primitive sort. In applications to linear algebra,
these diagrams are often called `spin networks', but category theorists call them `string diagrams',
and that here has little to do with string theory.
Traditionally, mathematics has been founded on the category Set, where the objects are
sets and the morphisms are functions. So, when we study systems and processes in physics, it is
tempting to specify a system by giving its set of states, and a process by giving a function from
states of one system to states of another.
However, in quantum physics we do something subtly different: we use categories where
objects are Hilbert spaces and morphisms are bounded linear operators. We specify a system by
giving a Hilbert space, but this Hilbert space is not really the set of states of the system: a state is
actually a ray in Hilbert space. Similarly, a bounded linear operator is not precisely a function
from states of one system to states of another. Functors and natural transformations are useful for
putting extra structure on categories. Here is a rather different use for functors: we will think of a
functor F:C D as giving a picture, or representation, of C in D (a model?). The idea is that F
can map objects and morphisms of some abstract category C to objects and morphisms of a
more concrete category D.
So, consider an abstract group G. This is the same as a category with one object and with
all morphisms invertible. The object is uninteresting, so we can just call it , but the morphisms
are the elements of G, and we compose them by multiplying them. A representation of G on a
finite-dimensional Hilbert space is the same as a functor F:G Hilb. Similarly, an action of G
on a set is the same as a functor F:G Set. Both notions are ways of making an abstract group
far more concrete. Since the early 1960s, functors as representations have become omnipresent.
Since, logicians have called the category C a theory, and the functor F:C D a model of this
theory. However, other have referred to F as an algebra of the theory, but here D will be our
default choice for the category Set. So here the default choice of D is either the category we are
calling Hilb or a similar category of infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces. And since here we are
dealing with objects which can be treated as set of a category or infinite-dimensional Hilbert
spaces, both conformal field theories and topological quantum field theories can be seen as
functors of this sort. And what is useful then is that if we can think of functors as models, natural
transformations can then serve as maps between models.
Without getting into a whole lot of mathematics, we can say that given two functors (F,
F:C D), a natural transformation (: F F ) can assign a morphism (: X Y) to every
object in the category C, such that for any morphism in C, the equation Y F() = F() X holds
in D. Furthermore, a natural isomorphism between the functors is a natural transformation,
such that X is an isomorphism for every X C. This brings us to a category with a single
monoidal category of the product type a cartesian product category. This category consists of
two objects, each with a morphism apiece, each with composition and identity morphism done
by component. The subtlety of the definition is that (X Y ) Z and X (Y Z) are not
usually equal, in which case we need to specify isomorphisms and satisfy specifiable equations.

The definition of a monoidal category has already been offered above. We leave the triangle
equation and pentagon equation (with the four tensors)
In a monoidal category we can do processes in `parallel' as well as in `series'. Doing
processes in series is just composition of morphisms, which works in any category. But in a
monoidal category we can also tensor morphisms :X Y and f:X Y and obtain a parallel
process :X X Y Y. The rules of a monoidal category permit the neglect of
associators and unitors when dealing with Unum objects, without getting in trouble. The reason
is that Mac Lane's Coherence Theorem (see 1) says any monoidal category is equivalent, in a
suitable sense, to one where all associators and unitors are identity morphisms, such that we can
consider picture-objects deformed in various ways and still have the morphism remain the same.
Baez and Stay suggest that anyone using string diagrams explore for him/herself the rules of the
game. We did. And we realized that, as we needed to deform objects in the Unum when
considering upward and downward causal chains, we could use string diagrams and yet deform
objects as needed in dealing with the behavior of protocondensate (pre-unisonic protomatter) and
protoparticulate (post-unisonic proto) matter along causal chains.1 For a more formal exposition
of string diagram rules, see (4) and (5).
To learn to use this mathematics in the analysis and description of Unum behavior, we
treated it as a set and used the cartesian product as a monoidal category. But there are also ways
to make Hilb into a monoidal category where the tensor product is the direct sum: Cn Cm @
Cn+m. In this case the unit object is the zero-dimensional Hilbert space, {0}and this object can be
then treated as C*.
In causal chain behavior in the Unum, we also encountered specific phenomena which
required us to treat them as initiator or initiant objects and terminal objects. As such, we then
defined a 0 object in a category C* as initiant or initiator if for any object A C there is a unique
morphism from Q to 0, which we can then denote it as !Q:Q 0. Same with a terminal object.
This then allowed us to proceed with causal chain behavior as deformed object in a multi-
dimensional space without having to change morphism.
However, the strangeness of the Unum does not stop here. As indicated in (2), the Unum
behaved as a onion-like ovoid globular form having its initiation at a boundary range we called
the T-boundary. Its metaorganization indicated that it arranges itself by means of resonance and
by harmonics of the initiator or 0 object in the category C*. There are seven harmonics in total,
the second of which (or what we dubbed the Prime-causal superdomain) displayed a function of
being a superlibrary, in which objects were stored in digital, trigital, quintigital and hexagital
formats. We yet dont understand the reason for this multiple formatting. But we do know that
formatting and the storage medium were translatable into each other and a handshake
procedure was common to both much like a new software added to an operating system relies
on a handshake signature to connect and integrate itself into the whole. Even stranger was that
entries into this superlibrary behaved with us as though everything was digital. So, to understand
the workings of it all, we could treat each entry as a finite, binary product with initiant and
terminal objects which all did! This then behaved as a full-fledged crtesian category, which
also allowed for the duplication and deletion of information in any product in other words, a
modification with a new morphism to boot!
And then there were braided objects that were systems wrapped around each other that,
topologically speaking, switch each other around in a tangle that describes the process of
switching two points. If we referred to this category Cb (and an object in a cartesian set C) as a
braided monoidal category, then a natural isophormism known as the braiding assigns to every

pair, quad or hex of objects an isomorphism bx,y:X Y Y X, such that hexagon equations
are possible. Phenomena in the Prime-causal (see Fig. 1) behaved very much like symmetric
monoidal categories in the Prime-causal, were real and very weird. Baez and Stay say that a
symmetric monoidal category is a braided category where the braiding satisfies bX;Y = b Y,X 1
Any cartesian category automatically becomes a symmetric monoidal category, so Set is quite
Another useful device is an n-category. An n-category has not only morphisms going
between objects, but 2-morphisms going between morphisms, 3-morphisms going between 2-
morphisms and so on up to n-morphisms. In topology we can use n-categories to describe
tangled higher-dimensional surfaces, and in physics they are use to describe not just particles but
also strings and higher-dimensional membranes. We, on the other hand, will use them to deal
with higher-dimensional spacetime, especially media in superdomains where there are variant
space/time ratios within the same medium. What we have, and will continue to use, is probably
just a fragment of much larger, as Baez and Stay say, still buried n-categorical Rosetta Stone.

Theory-making: From logical theories from categories to a model for

the generation of a collapsed 4-d Minkowsky space from a 7-d and a
10-d space Useful tools

Different categories give rise to different systems of logic.

Proof theory lends us another key to use by way of Gentzens (6) few axioms-many
different inference rules approach. Its usefulness to us is the very mirror image it demands.
Aspects of the Unum it reveals to itself lays before us a range of change from homopolar
idiomaterial protomatter to polarelectric protomatter condensate; in the first two harmonics of the
T-boundary Prime-causal and Thought (see Fig. 1), we encountered idiomaterial matter
protopatterns of a substance we could only define as idiomaterial homopolar quintessence
(essence being another definition of the medium in which essences become quintessences in
order to become idiomaterial matter protopattern forms). At the third Unisonic idiomaterial
homopolar quintessences change from protopattern forms to dielectric protomatter condensate of
particulate quality. We needed something that would make possible for us to handle mirror-
image process in variable symmetry environments.
Gentzen realized mirror symmetry arises from the duality between a category and its
opposite, and used sequent calculus. But it wasnt enough, not until Girard introduced some new
linear connectives and a new constant I. He also kept certain other connectives in his system, and
introduced an operation (!) called the exponential. Why intuitionistic logic in classical logic? It is
possible to make extremely fine distinctions without losing any deductive power. It turns out to
be that multiplicative intuitionistic linear logic is precisely what we needed to deal with natural
phenomena that behaved as closed symmetric monoidal categories. Closed symmetric monoidal
systems as braided monoidal theories let us build categories from logical systems. In other
words, we can take objects to be propositions and the morphisms as equivalence classes of
proofs, where the equivalence relations are generated as equations and such sequents are
meaning. Thus, instead of treating propositions appearing in an inference rule as fixed, we can
treat them as a variable, and thereby treat any inference rule as a schema to get new proof from
old and be able to update the detected variables in real (local) time, such that it may even be
possible to predict change status of a chain.

The descriptions given by neurosensors of Unum behavior and, more specifically, the
performance of superdomains, requires us to look at all superdomains simultaneously as both
integrated and specific at once. For some of the things we will need to do, it is necessary to
develop canonical forms, perturbation theory that measures how the eigensystems change when
the parameters in the matrix are perturbed, and information about the possible eigensystems. In a
linear transformation, an eigenvector of that linear transformation is a nonzero vector which,
when that transformation is applied to it, may change in length, but it remains along the
same line (the direction will "flip" if the eigenvalue is negative). For each eigenvector of a linear
transformation, there is a corresponding scalar value called an eigenvalue for that vector, which
determines the amount the eigenvector is scaled under the linear transformation.
An example of it would be an eigenvalue of +2 meaning that the eigenvector is doubled in length
and points in the same direction. An eigenvalue of +1 means that the eigenvector is unchanged,
while an eigenvalue of 1 means that the eigenvector is reversed in sense. An eigenspace of a
given transformation for a particular eigenvalue is the set (linear span) of the eigenvectors
associated with this eigenvalue, together with the zero vector (which has no direction).
A condition often found in gnosive work and in the reporting of gnosive information is
that a given superdomain may behave as space of dimensions higher than three, and time
according to the energy available in that specific domain. In these domains, condensates behave
like objects with vectors. Thus, we may treat them as mathematical objects with vectors:
functions, harmonic modes, quantum states, and frequencies, for example. In these cases,
gnosively and mathematically speaking, the idea of direction loses its ordinary meaning, and is
given an abstract definition. Even so, if this abstract direction is unchanged by a given linear
transformation, the prefix "eigen" is used, as in eigenfunction, eigenmode, eigenstate, and
But for transformation in real vector spaces, we run into some interesting situations.
For transformations on real vector spaces, the coefficients of the characteristic polynomial are all
real, and the the roots are not necessarily real; they may include complex numbers with a non-
zero imaginary component. Over a complex space, the sum of the algebraic multiplicities will
equal the dimension of the vector space, but the sum of the geometric multiplicities may be
smaller. In a sense, then it is possible that there may not be sufficient eigenvectors to span the
entire space. This is intimately related to the question of whether a given matrix may be
diagonalized by a suitable choice of coordinates.

Dimensionality in superdomains

As a one-dimensional vector space, consider the example of a rubber string tied to

unmoving support in one end, much like that on a child's sling. Pulling the string away from the
point of attachment stretches it and elongates it by some scaling factor which is a real number.
Each vector on the string is stretched equally, with the same scaling factor , and although
elongated, it preserves its original direction. For a two-dimensional vector space, consider a
rubber sheet stretched equally in all directions such as a small area of the surface of an inflating
balloon. All vectors originating at the fixed point on the balloon surface (the origin) are stretched
equally with the same scaling factor . Expressed in words, the transformation is equivalent to
multiplying the length of any vector by while preserving its original direction. Since the vector
taken was arbitrary, every non-zero vector in the vector space is an eigenvector.

Whether the transformation is stretching (elongation, extension, inflation), or shrinking
(compression, deflation) depends on the scaling factor: if > 1, it is stretching; if < 1, it is
shrinking. Negative values of correspond to a reversal of direction, followed by a stretch or a
shrink, depending on the absolute value of .
Many illustrative mathematics are needed in the descriptive endeavor of capturing live,
real time gnosive events in the referent space/time ration of the neurosensor. Another is the
nonlinear eigenproblem - a generalization of an ordinary eigenproblem to equations that depend
nonlinearly on the eigenvalue. Specifically, it refers to equations of the form:

where x is a vector (i.e., the nonlinear eigenvector) and A is a matrix-valued function of the
number (the nonlinear "eigenvalue"). More generally, A() could be a linear map, but most
commonly it is a finite-dimensional, usually square, matrix. A is usually required to be a
holomorphic function of (in some domain).3
Then there there are infinite dimensional spaces and spectral values. If the vector space is
an infinite dimensional Banach space, the notion of eigenvalues can be generalized to the
concept of spectrum. The spectrum is the set of scalars for which (T I)1 is not defined; that
is, such that T I has no bounded inverse.
It is reasonable to think then that if is an eigenvalue of T, is in the spectrum of T. In
general, the converse is not true. There are operators on Hilbert or Banach spaces which have no
eigenvectors at all. This can be seen in the following example. The bilateral shift on the Hilbert
space (that is, the space of all sequences of scalars a1, a0, a1, a2, such that

converges) has no eigenvalue but does have spectral values. In infinite-dimensional spaces, the
spectrum of a bounded operator is always nonempty. This is also true for an unbounded self
adjoint operator. Via its spectral measures, the spectrum of any self adjoint operator, bounded or
otherwise, can be decomposed into absolutely continuous, pure point, and singular parts.

Basic Physical Processes in Idiomaterial Science

As we have explained elsewhere (8), idiomaterial science begins at the T-boundary,

which makes all of creation, including the universe we know, as both thought (information) and
condensed matter (templates). In an idiomaterial physics, the basic physical processes are not
necessarily observed directly, that is to say, separately sensed by humans or equivalent sensory-
mimicking machines. What is considered is a collection of constituents A that will comprise a
physical-system or a completed and named physical-system B. Then physical processes yield an
observed physical-system A' composed of the constituents or an observed alteration B' in the
physical system B. In fluid-dynamic media (as superdomains beyond space/time are), physical
systems (such as those in our referent space/time) exhibit very different behavior signatures.
Whatever physical processes are involved may yield relations, but the behavior signatures are the
very source of data which we seek to learn, to monitor, and to forecast contextual physical
behavior in any given superdomain setting.

We cannot treat presumed physical laws thought to be valid in any one or another
superdomain environment, and thus we cannot treat anything yet as theory that can behave like a
black box which displays any given set of behavior parameters. There are no mathematical
expressions or discernible geometric figures embedded in the flows and eddies of the medium of
which superdomains are made. Everything is beyond form, and all lies in the idiomateriality of
information. Information in these media is beyond anything Shannon ever dream about. But
using mathematical logic, we are learning to model thought behavior (or behavior produced by
informatic interplay between aspects, sectors and domains) of various superdomains of the
In quantum theory, hypothesized objects and processes can be characterized by
mathematical ideas, and from observable behavior, behavior signatures of these objects and
processes can be mathematically predicted. Methods of prediction include a combination of the
mathematics plus an interpretation and human logic which use the same or similar logic
modalities used in the mathematics themselves. This kind of interpretation then allows for a
replacement of the abstract mathematical terms for useful terms taken from a list of physical or
other discipline terms.
Finally, data comes to what ones choice of virtual or undetectable physical object is
admitted as valid source. What is admitted as data depends on personal choice and prejudice,
training and predisposition. Nevertheless, those objects dont have to correspond to reality
because there are other theories which, according to (9),few know about, that don't employ many
of them and that predict the same results using the same philosophy of science. More
importantly for what follows is that the philosophy can also be applied to gnosive notions and to
what is defined in life physics as not directly detectable idiomaterial stuff. This then makes the
following adaptation of Hermanns immaterial and basic model scientific in character, and it
can't be rejected by mere or simple claims to the contrary. This, however, is also beyond the
scope of this short essay.
One more thing, though, before closing: the idea of the immaterial we use is quite distinct
from the defined objects used throughout the GGU-model ultranatural world. (9) defines the
ultranatural world as comprised of any mathematical representation for physical world entities as
well as others that form a not directly detectable background universe or substratum. The
operators used therein represent "physical-like" processes. Due to how the mathematics is
employed, technically, as operators, physical processes are members of the set of all ultranatural
processes. Operators within the ultranatural world represent physical-like processes in the same
manner that physical process relations are represented in the physical world except that the
physical-like processes are not members of the set of all physical processes.

1. In this regard, gnosive evidence we generated in the early years of the 2000-2010 decade
showed that matter generated at a formless boundary range (not singularity) we dubbed the T-
boundary was protocondensate thought behaving like protoparticulate matter would until it
reached a resonance superfunction in the resonant harmonics of the Unum we called unisonic
superdomain. Anything beyond the unisonic superfunction would then begin to demonstrate
functional characteristics of protoparticles agglutinating as protoparticulate matter. The process
is quite more complex, for which we then refer you to (4).

2. At the start of the 20th century, Hilbert studied the eigenvalues of integral operators by
viewing the operators as infinite matrices (7). He was the first to use the German word eigen to
denote eigenvalues and eigenvectors in 1904, though he may have been following a related usage
by Helmholtz. "Eigen" can be translated as "own", "peculiar to", "characteristic", or individual,"
emphasizing how important eigenvalues are to defining the unique nature of a specific
3. For example, an ordinary linear eigenproblem , where B is a square matrix,
corresponds to A() = B I, where I is the identity matrix. One common case is where A is a
polynomial matrix, which is called a polynomial eigenvalue problem. In particular, the specific
case where the polynomial has degree two is called a quadratic eigenvalue problem, and can be
written in the form:

in terms of the constant square matrices A0,1,2. This can be converted into an ordinary linear
generalized eigenproblem of twice the size by defining a new vector . In terms of x and
y, the quadratic eigenvalue problem becomes:

where I is the identity matrix. More generally, if A is a matrix polynomial of degree d, then one
can convert the nonlinear eigenproblem into a linear (generalized) eigenproblem of d times the
size. Besides converting them to ordinary eigenproblems, which only works if A is polynomial,
there are other methods of solving nonlinear eigenproblems based on the Jacobi-Davidson
algorithm or based on Newton's method (related to inverse iteration).

1. Baez, J. C. & Stay, M. Physics, Topology, Logic and Computation: A Rosetta Stone. Narch
15, 2008.
2. Bordon, A. R. Ultimate causation (T-boundary) as causal sui-genesis of all superdomains,
including 4-spacetime. Foundation Reports in Life Physics 1, 1, 60-108, 2004(a).
3. Bordon, A. R. Ultimate causation (T-boundary) as causal sui-genesis of all superdomains,
including 4-spacetime. Foundation Reports in Life Physics 1, 1, 60-108, 2004(b).
4. Joyal, A. and R. Street, The geometry of tensor calculus I, Adv. Math. 88 (1991), 55-113.
5. Yetter, D. N. Functorial Knot Theory: Categories of Tangles, Coherence, Categorical
Deformations, and Topological Invariants, World Scientific, Singapore, 2001.
6. Szabo, M . E., ed., Collected Papers of Gerhard Gentzen. North Holland, Amsterdam, 1969.
7. Cohen-Tannoudji, Claude. Quantum mechanics. New York, Wiley & Sons, 1977 (Chapter II.
The mathematical tools of quantum mechanics).
8. Bordon, A. R. & Wienz, E. M. How the Life Physics Group California came about. LPG-
California, Los Angeles Hub, 2009.
9. Herrmann, R. A. Thought control: A rational model for immaterial mental influences.