You are on page 1of 9


In the simplest possible terms, the Quasicrystalline Spin Network or QSN is a quasicrystal
that we theorize is the fundamental substructure of reality. Imagine it as a 3D version of a 2D
TV screen. A 2D TV screen is made up of 2D pixels that change brightness and color levels
from one video frame to the next at a certain speed (for example 24 frames per second in
most modern movies). Similarly, the QSN is a 3D grid of Planck scale, tetrahedron-shaped
“pixels” that via the rules of a binary, geometric language/code, exist at each "frame" of
reality as either on or off, and if on, then rotated left or right. These pixels populate the QSN,
and their states change from one frame to the next, at a "universal frame rate" of 10^44
frames per second (Planck time). Over many of these frames patterns emerge on this 3D
quasicrystal. These patterns become more and more meaningful and sophisticated with time.
After a while, particles begin to form on the quasicrystal. With time, these particles take on
more and more complex forms, and eventually the reality we all know emerges.

Now a slightly more technically detailed explanation: the Quasicrystalline Spin Network is a
3D representation of a 4D quasicrystal, called the Elser-Sloane Quasicrystal, which is created
by projecting the E8 lattice to 4D. This 4D quasicrystal is made entirely of regular, 3D
tetrahedra, which is achieved due to the particular angle of the E8 to 4D projection. When we
take any five 3D subspaces of this 4D quasicrystal (one subspace being all tetrahedra that are
oriented in the same direction) and then rotate them from one another by 15.552* degrees, we
come up with a 3D quasicrystal that can be seen as a representation of the 4D, Elser-Sloane
quasicrystal. We call this new, 3D quasicrystal the “compound quasicrystal.” Why is the
compound quasicrystal important? It is important because of its relationship to the QSN.


The QSN is the densest possible 3D network of point-sharing Fibonacci chains and is the
most computationally efficient point space in 3D. It is created by taking the FCC lattice (a
point space that provides the densest packing of 3D spheres) and then spreading its points
until they are spaced according to the Fibonacci sequence. We then take this new lattice of
Fibonacci spaced points, clone it five times and rotate the five clones from one another by
15.522 degrees to create the QSN.

As it turns out, the compound quasicrystal is an exact subspace of the QSN: the QSN
contains all legal configurations of the Elser-Sloane, E8-to-4D quasicrystal.

The QSN therefore is deeply related to the E8 lattice and its 4D projection.

To read a more detailed, scientific paper on the Quasicrystalline Spin Network click here.

NOTE: Patterns on the QSN that have not been actualized as expressions of the code do not
actually exist in some sort of “possibility space”. For information to exist, it must be
actualized into existence by the process of recognition/registration by a form of
consciousness. And if reality is information, then there is no real space of “no-information”.
There is information that has been generated and information that can be generated but has
not been. The latter type does not exist, ontologically speaking.



The existence of quasicrystals in matter was firmly believed by the scientific community to
be absolutely impossible.

Then Paul Steinhardt predicted that they must exist.

Then Dan Schechtman discovered them in matter. Synthetic matter, but matter.

And then they were discovered in nature. In meteor fragments – but nature.

A quasicrystal is an aperiodic, but not random, pattern. A quasicrystal in any given

dimension is created by projecting a crystal - a periodic pattern - from a higher dimension to
a lower one. For example, imagine projecting a 3-dimensional checkerboard - or cubic lattice
made of equally sized and equally spaced cubes - onto a 2D plane at a certain angle. The 3D
cubic lattice is a periodic pattern that stretches out infinitely in all directions. The 2-
dimensional, projected object is not a periodic pattern. Rather, it is distorted due to the angle
of projection, and instead of containing only one shape that repeats infinitely like the 3D
crystal does, it contains a finite number of different shapes (called proto-tiles) that combine
with one another in specific ways governed by a set of mathematical/geometrical rules to fill
the 2D plane in all directions. It is possible, with the correct mathematical and
trigonometrical toolkit to actually recover the mother object in 3D (the cubic lattice in this
example) by analyzing the 2D projection. A famous example of a 2D quasicrystal is the
Penrose tiling conceived by Roger Penrose in the 1970’s, in which a 2D quasicrystal is
created by projecting a 5-dimensional cubic lattice to a 2D plane.

Emergence theory focuses on projecting the 8-dimensional E8 crystal to 4D and 3D. When
the fundamental 8D cell of the E8 lattice (a shape with 240 vertices known as the “Gosset
polytope”) is projected to 4D, two identical, 4D shapes of different sizes are created. The
ratio of their sizes is the golden ratio. Each of these shapes are constructed of 600 3-
dimensional tetrahedra rotated from one another by a golden ratio based angle. We refer to
this 4D shape as the “600-Cell”. The 600-cells interact in specific ways (they intersect in 7
golden-ratio related ways and “kiss” in one particular way) to form a 4D quasicrystal. We
then project this 4D quasicrystal to 3D to form a 3D quasicrystal that has one type of proto-
tile: a 3D tetrahedron.

To learn more on the fascinating new world of quasicrystals, here are some academic papers
on the subject:

Dan Shechtman, Ilan Blech (1984). “Metallic Phase with Long-Range Orientational Order
and No Translational Symmetry.”

Alan Mackay (1982). “Crystallography and the Penrose Pattern.”

Paul Steinhardt. Here is a list of papers he authored and co-authored on the subject of


Veit Elser, N.J.A Sloane. “A Highly Symmetric Four Dimensional Quasicrystal”.

Michael Baake, Franz Gähler. “Symmetry Structure of the Elser-Sloane Quasicrystal”.

J.F. Sadoc, R. Mosseri. “The E8 Lattice and Quasicrystals.”

Justus A. Kromer, et al. “What Phasons Look Like: Particle Trajectories in a

Quasicrystalline Potential.”

Marjolein N. van der Linden, Jonathan P.K. Doye, Ard A. Louis (2012) “Formation of
dodecahedral quasicrystals in two-dimensional systems of patchy particles”

Pablo F. Damasceno, et al. (2012) “Predictive Self-Assembly of Polyhedra into Complex


John Gardiner (2012) “Fibonacci, quasicrystals and the beauty of flowers.”

Kleman, Maurice (2011). Cosmic Forms.

Amir Haji-Akbari, et al. (2009) “Disordered, quasicrystalline and crystalline phases of

densely packed tetrahedra.”

Kleman, Maurice (2002). Phasons and the Plastic Deformation of Quasicrystals.

Dmitrienko, V E.; Kléman, M. (2001). Tetrahedral structures with icosahedral order and
their relation to quasicrystals.

Dmitrienko, V E.; Kléman, M. (1999). Icosahedral order and disorder in semiconductors.

Henley, C.L. (1986). Sphere Packings and local environments in Penrose tilings.


The principle of efficient language

The principle of efficient language states that the universe tends toward expressions that use
minimal geometric symbolism for maximal meaning. And there are two general classes of
meaning that it recognizes: geometric (physical) meaning, such as a triangle formed by three
particles, and emergent virtually transcendent meaning, such as humor. The system is
intelligent enough to register both types of meaning. And it can register meaning, via its sub-
systems (sub-consciousnesses of the universal consciousness), such as humans.

Fundamental physics is a language – a code made of geometric symbol types (fundamental

particles) and organizational/syntactical rules (force interactions allowing certain
relationships between particles). And, as with all codes, there is freedom (particle degrees of
freedom) within the syntax. This language expresses the geometric meaning of physical

Geometric algorithms can evolve to high levels of complexity reminiscent of patterns in

nature. This is the case with cellular automata (Wolfram). Such algorithms can be fully
deterministic or have non-deterministic variable choices at certain steps (converting a mere
algorithm into a code/language). We call these free choices “hinge variable” steps. A simple
example of language and the hinge variable idea is this code: Take two moves forward on a
checkerboard. Then choose one step right or left and then take two more steps forward and so
on. The choosing of steps (right or left) at the hinge variable, can be done randomly or by the
strategy of an intelligent code user.

It is generally presumed that the hinge variable degrees of freedom in the language of nature
are operated randomly by an intrinsic randomness in nature. That is, wherever rules don’t
force a particle’s position (e.g., two equally low energy wells that are each an equal distance
from an approaching particle), pure randomness will determine it. And quantum mechanics
goes even further, speculating that the appearance of all particles at any location is always

If nature is truly a language because it is non-deterministic and yet has rules and a finite set of
object types, there are only two choices for how the decisions at the hinge variable free steps
in a language can be made: Randomness or conscious strategic choice. The case for
conscious choice “steering” of the hinge variable is made easily in situations with humans.
For example, let’s say you creatively invent a reason to step to your right instead of left. By
doing so, you orchestrate countless trillions of actions in the particle based physical code.
Imagine that the hinge variable options of particles in your body are acted on by pure
randomness. If so, when you creatively steer your body to walk right instead of left, you
“break the symmetry” of the randomness and bias the system to your purposes – your freewill
intention. The system of your body can no longer be said to have evolved as randomly as
before you started making freewill choices. In other words, some of the previously random
hinge variable choices in the physical particle language are now neither random nor
algorithmically determined. Instead, they are steered or indirectly chosen by your freewill
action to walk to the right.

However, it is difficult to conjecture that randomness ever existed in the code in the first
place, even before you chose to walk right. There is no good experimental evidence for
randomness. This fact is known by many scientists but not the public. However, there is
reasonable scientific evidence for freewill.


So here we have an interesting idea. If we presume a natural code/language of physical reality

exists, we can come to the conclusion that human freewill can hijack some of the hinge
variable freedom within the code – taking it away from previously random influence.

There is no known upward limit on emergent consciousness and freewill. So, in principle, all
of the matter and energy of the universe can self-organize into intelligent sub-systems, like
humans, that are capable of hijacking every formerly random hinge variable code choice in
the Planck scale building blocks of the fabric of spacetime. That is, of course, if the choices
were ever random in the first place.

The takeaway so far in this story is this: If the universe operated according to a code, there
are hinge variables in the code. A code is any algorithm with hinge variable degrees of
freedom, such as English. For example, rules force you to use an adjective at the blank in the
following sentence but give you hinge variable freedom of which adjective you can choose:
“The dog ran _____”. The objective with codes is to use them efficiently in order to express
maximal meaning with minimal symbolism or choices. A code of physical reality expresses
geometric meaning. According to emergence theory, the base symbols at the pixilated
substructure of space are geometric – regular tetrahedra. And they are organized according to
a code. The actions of change in the code need to be conserved efficiently, according to the
principle of efficient language, so that maximal physical meaning is achieved with minimal
code actions. This idea mirrors the fundamental principle of least action in physics.

So, would the system ever make hinge variable choices by also registering meaning that is
non-physical? That is, would non-geometric (non-physical) meaning, the transcendent
meaning that humans are experts at creating, break the balance of an ordinarily pure
geometric system of meaning? Yes, the double slit experiment is evidence of this. Humans
are highly emergent sub-systems of this universal system. We ourselves ascribe meaning. We
create it. More than any other known part of the universe, a human is exceptional at creating
abstract emergent meaning. For example, consider just a few types of meaning an
experimenter adds to realty as she conducts a double slit quantum experiment in her lab: (1)
the significance of the meaning of the particle going through one slit versus the other, (2) the
competing theories relating to quantum particles versus waves and (3) the delight at the
thought of her supervisor seeing she was able to register that particular recording of a particle
going through a given slit. There are many abstract meanings we ascribe to things that go
beyond brute-simple physical meaning – that is, the pure geometric information or meaning
of the code. When this extra meaning is “pumped” into the system of reality by an animal
such as a human, the purely physical “symmetry” of the system is broken in some sense. An
asymmetry of meaning occurs with respect to the hinge variable choices in the geometric
quantum gravity code occurring around the two slits. The human is able to add additional
meaning to reality itself about a particle going through one slit if he/she can devise an
experiment that provides the meaning about the path of that particle through one of the slits.
The hinge variable aspects of the code are then steered or directed in some sense by the
human adding this new meaning into the system. But, mathematically, the collective
consciousness based substrate of the code operates the actual hinge variable choices in the
code. The purpose of any code/language is to convey meaning. And any good code user,
whether nature, via the principle of least action, or a human code user, seeks to generate
maximal meaning from minimal instances of symbol choices. A spoken language analogy of
a system with an efficient ratio of symbols to meaning is a play on words, such as a double
entendre or poem, where a small number of words can have multiple meanings. A physical
example of a single symbol playing a rule in multiple instances of meaning is a quasicrystal.


A change of an atomic position at one coordinate encodes information in multiple 1D

Fibonacci chain strings of binary code.


Emergence theory focuses on projecting the 8-dimensional crystal known as the E8 lattice to
4D and then representing the resulting, projected 4D quasicrystal in a 3D quasicrystal on
which reality as we know it emerges.

When the fundamental 8D cell of the E8 lattice - a shape with 240 vertices known as the
“Gosset polytope” - is projected to 4D, two identical, 4D shapes of different sizes are created.
The ratio of their sizes is the golden ratio. Because of the particular angle of projection from
8D to 4D, each of these shapes is constructed of 600 3-dimensional tetrahedra rotated from
one another by a golden ratio based angle. We refer to this 4D shape as the “600-Cell.” The
600-cells interact in specific ways (they intersect in 7 golden ratio related ways and “kiss” in
one particular way) to form the 4D quasicrystal.




A ball of 20 regular tetrahedra with a shared vertex at the center is special. It is the largest
number of tetrahedra that can share a vertex and it is the smallest cluster of tetrahedra that
form a sphere-like shape. It is also the smallest group of tetrahedra with the symmetry of an
icosahedron. It is roughly spherical. Spherical forms are ubiquitous in the universe, from
micro to cosmic scales.

Each tetrahedron has four faces with none being parallel to the others. By contrast, a cube has
six faces that come in three pairs of parallel faces. When 20 tetrahedra are evenly spaced
around a shared vertex, there are gaps between the inner faces, creating 70 sets of parallel

That is, most faces are not parallel with any others. When we rotate each tetrahedron in the
same direction on an axis running through outer face centers to the shared inner vertex by a
golden ratio based angle of ½ [ArcCos(1/4) – ArcCos(-1/2)], all the inner faces kiss (no gaps)
and the 70 sets of parallel faces shrink to only 10 – the minimum possible for 20 connected
tetrahedra (connected because each touches all 19 of the others). The outside edges cross at
an interesting point – a point dividing each exactly into the golden ratio, where the ratio of
the short side to the long side is the same as the ratio of the long side to the whole edge (the
sum of the long and short sides).

What is so interesting about this shape for unification physics? It relates to higher
dimensions, just as the mathematics of modern gravitational and particle physics does. Like a
shadow, a quasicrystal is a projection of a crystal shape in one dimension to a lower
dimension. The number of parallel edges, faces or volumes in the projection cannot be greater
than in the higher dimensional shape. Our physics model is related to the algebra and
geometry of the E8 lattice. We project it to a 4D quasicrystal made of 3D tetrahedra that are
in groups of 20, which share a vertex. This 20-group in 4D also has 10 sets of parallel faces.
So the importance of our 3D 20-group of tetrahedra that are golden ratio twisted in the way
shown is that it maps to or encodes information of the eight dimensional E8 lattice right here
in our ordinary 3D physical reality. And this, we will show, is necessary for fundamental
unification physics.


Pixelated vs Smooth Spacetime

German physicist Werner Heisenberg developed the first equations of quantum mechanics
using Matrix mathematics. He deduced that space and time were pixelated into indivisible, 3-
dimensional Planck length units (similar to the 2D pixels on your computer screen). The
mathematics indicated this, and there was no solid experimental evidence for smooth – in
other words not pixelated – spacetime.

Smooth spacetime comes with the strange implication of an infinite amount of points
between any two points. The entertaining Zeno’s Dichotomy Paradox confronts this problem
by suggesting that if you want to get from point A to point B, you first must get half way
between those two points. And to get there, you must get half way between those two points
and so on ad infinitum.

Obviously, this paradox is silly because we usually do get to point B. however, if we do get
to point B, this implies that reality is pixelated. Heisenberg’s ideas of a pixelated reality were
too radical for most scientists of his day except, notably, for Niels Bohr, who agreed with
them. Today, more scientists agree with this digital physics notion of a pixelated spacetime.
Many still do not, and believe spacetime is smooth, and without structure – not pixelated. On
the other hand, most agree that a length can be no shorter than the Planck length, which
suggests that reality is pixelated. So there is a good deal of confusion.

We believe that until a powerful quantum gravity theory of pixelated spacetime is discovered,
the issue will remain confusing.