In dense aether model the universe is just random Boltzmann gas of space-time events, the interior of black holes comes on mind here (but without ad-hoced boundary or surface). The trick is the true randomness doesn't exist, as we can always sample an events, which follow certail at least minute causality and for observer (so called Boltzmann brain) which follows the same causality such a system will not be completely empty. After then we can ask, which geometry such a system would have?

The good model of random system is the supercritical gas: before it condenses, it exhibits a foamy network of density fluctuations. Therefore it shouldn't surprise us, that the vacuum would have similar structure. Note that even complete randomness exhibits some rules, for example large fluctuations must be less probable in it, than these small ones - or something gets wrong with its randomness (the probability of four sixes in dice throws is lower than the probability of two or three ones). This is quite a lot of principles for to deduce something predictable from it.

Mainstream physics considers vacuum empty and it denies the possible existence of Boltzmann brains for the seeming impossibility to keep them sufficiently stable. But once we consider vacuum a dense dynamic environment of another events, then we suddenly get lotta time or material for spontaneous formation of sufficiently complex fluctuations, which could observe the rest.

Regarding the author Klee Irwin, the online sources aren't very positive about his authority and even moral credit... His style of writing is also not very clear and it's full of unreferenced deductions.

for example, when a physically realistic quantum gravity code theoretic framework is discovered, it will . ...lead to the principle of efficient language (PEL), which will demand that the universe operate as a relationship between E8, H4 and H3.

This is indeed easy to say (in essence, every author of inconvenint theory BELIEVES, that his theory describes reality well) - but the evidence usually is far not so clear.

How the "relationships between E8, H4 and H3" follows from the philosophical essay above linked?

Today, deterministic modelsare widely believed to be false [6], while the axiom of randomnessis generally presumed to be true. This virtual consensus is due totwo ideas. The first is the vastly popular Copenhagen interpreta-tion of quantum mechanics [7], which stipulates that the universeis fundamentally random.

That may, for all I know, be true amongst philosophers. But it is not amongst physicists.

The current most popular interpretation of QM is some variety of many-worlds. In this case the universe is provably (to any observer) always apparently random, whilst being precisely mathematically deterministic. There are variants, and post-Copenhagen interpretations like Cramer's Transcational Interpretation. But this is not Copenhagen, which is not very popular nowadays, due to the difficulty in deciding when a wave function should collapse.

I think somone motivating his work from perceived shortcomings of QM interpretation should address modern thinking in that area first, before jumping down a rabbit hole.

Quote

The current most popular interpretation of QM is some variety of many-worlds

Really?

That proves nothing about what most physicists think.

Even so I'm surprised. Lots of dinosaurs around.

And, regardless, the dichotomy suggested by the OP goes away with a more enlightened interpretation of existing theory.

Aha. And what is your source on what most physicists think?

I read further in that Quantum Opinion Paper. https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.1069

Great question....honest responses . Thanks Zeus for the find.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

Mainstream physics considers vacuum empty

On the contrary, according to QED and the Standard Model, the vacuum is not empty. Here is a nice read on some experimental evidence through the Casimir effect https://physics.aps.org/story/v2/st28

More generally, there are many similarities between quantum field theories and aether theories. This was first pointed out by Dirac himself in his Letter to Nature of 1951, in which he concluded: "Thus with the new theory of electrodynamics we are rather forced to have an aether". https://www.nature.com/nature/…8/n4282/abs/168906a0.html

Zephir_AWT wrote: Mainstream physics considers vacuum empty

Although not considered mainstream , GUTCP espouses this view

"Matter is composed of real, physical fundamental particles only. There are no virtual particles, no zero point energy and no vacuum energy. A void is simply that - a void. Conservation of mass and energy is never violated. ^[3]

As there are no virtual particles, the weak Casimir force between two closely space plates is not caused by them. The Casimir force is a weak electromagnetic force that arises from the materials in the plates like van der Waal forces. "

http://brilliantlightpower.wikia.com/wiki/GUTCP_Fact_Sheet

"Are you suggesting that Casimir plates somehow pull each other?"

No.

Mills does not mention Casimir in GUTCP 2017 as far as I can see.

but others do elaborate.

https://froarty.scienceblog.co…ased-on-casimir-cavities/

There is a variety of interpretations out there

"he doesn't have math of physics degree."

Neither do I

Einstein and scientific belief and human foibles.

He didn't believe in quantum mechanics/ particle zoo

Oppenheimer and prejudice

Fermi and intuition ( prejudice?)

As simplistic as it may seem, LENR is the consequence of the soliton to the strong CP problem as explained by Peccei–Quinn theory, simple as that may be.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_CP_problem

As per Peccei–Quinn theory, spin projection via unbalanced magnetic field lines produce QCD instantons that change the theta parameter from near zero to pi.

https://www.perimeterinstitute…ons-and-strong-cp-problem

Quote from Alan Smith

Hi Rigel. There are a prodigious amount if 'New Ontological Theories' submitted for publication. A friend in the (print) Journal business tells me they see around one a week. I am not really qualified to comment on the content or the quality of this one since philosophy tends to bring me out in spots, so make no claims for this, but I have always found Klee to be a thoroughly decent (and generous) chap and a serious student and researcher into LENR. Perhaps in a truly 'Calofornia' way he has a deep interest in things that are too mystical for an engineer like me. Some at least of the business troubles that have gained him a rather raffish reputation are due to his being the owner of a business that he no longer has any day-today management of, but has been for some years a passenger in the hands of 'management at the wheel.' There is probably a lesson for us all there.

Alan are you sure you are responding to me? Can you post the # so i can respond please? The original ref is cut off somehow.

Also have a great time in Miami, and if you get the chance see the Keys, you will fall in love.

I admire Russ Gries the experimenter but the other fellow mentioned not so much (as others have mentioned) . If you provide a post # per above, I will try to respond.

Listen, take care and enjoy your trip. Expect traffic like downtown London after it collides into NYC in some horror show. Miami is big and traffic is big. Somehow they meet.

Food is excellent. I would more wish you were going to ICCF-21 but that is Rigel. Just wait till I see Dewey!