So Doctor Genius, have you read Wolfram? I took a pass at A New Kind Of Science and he would seem to agree with you about the computational part.
(Now I will sit back and watch everyone point out that he is an egotistical a-hole . . . as if . . .)
1 Like
Hey - timquinn
Same as you, probably - leafed through A New Kind of Science, admired the cascading automata.
Thereâs probably an argument to be made along the lines of, âWhatâs the universe made of if not computational/information-processing stuff?â What are the other candidates? Fundamental objects in themselves that just happen to act the way they do? Stuff that is acting according to (non-informational) principles that we donât yet and may never understand?
If you want to call dibs, the best way to do it is to usefully contribute something new to the field, not recycling old ideas by hand-waving. Complexity in the early universe? Itâs been done. The Big Bang isnât the beginning? Ditto.Digital physics? Goes back to '69 at least. (And it may surprise you, but I do have a great deal of sympathy for these ideas). I donât doubt you have the ability to come up with a novel, rigorous wrinkle if you choose to do it. So do it.
1 Like
Hey again, Elmer -
Have sketched out a system with pretty good specificity and detail here (mostly in parts 3 and 4, but scattered throughout). I envision the universe conducting most of its significant business via the five persistent particles - protons, neutrons, electrons, photons, and neutrinos.
Needs more math to be rigorous, but thatâs doable.
Thank you for thinking I can do it.
Wikipedia states that digital physics goes back to Konrad Zuse in 1967.
I agree with the author and some others above: the big bang will not last very long anymore as the model or theory. Not sure if it is funny or scary to see some of the negative reactions on the article; seems the Big Bang for many has become a religion that canât be challenged. Come on guys! Only a few centuries ago the earth was flat. Also a new theory, based on information or not, will be not survive forever! That is science.
And really, there are some fundamental issues with the current theory of todays view on our universe. More then 90% of the matter in the universe we canât see or understand - it is called dark matter and dark energy. Not detectable, but everywhere in the calculations behind the theory.
If you need to make a model work by adding over 90% matter/energy that is never proven to exist, it is fair to assume the model is wrong.
(Even bankers would not dare to include a 90% factor to their own benefit in their algorithms.)
2 Likes
Yes, turtles, all teenage, ancient and awkward, both up and down and all âround, but not all the way, there being tortoises in the mix (maybe even a toitoise or two), and a handful of hares (or hare-like rabbits) who breed like rabbits (or rabbit-like hares), plus an authentic Achilles (w/ replica shield) beneath Atlasâ ass (but topping it) upon which is tattooed a caveman cartoon of an ambiguous ambiguity (but accurate nonetheless), which, when interpreted (either in person directly or as a symbol in a story or as a picture in a painting or as the universe in unicode), is perceived to be a by-proxy proxy for by-proxy proxies.
Soo⌠Over nine thousand proxies?
4 Likes
I find a problem with beliveing in âFrom Nothing Comes Somethingâ.
Nothing means Nothing. No particles or matter of any and every kind.
No forms of Energy or Waves or Time.
How can you have an Effect without a Cause?
So, From Nothing Comes Nothing!
Although I do belive there was a âBig Bangâ, it was caused by something outside of Matter or Energy and Time, which was God.
I am a Christian, who knows what I believe,
âIn the begining, God said, âLet there be lightââŚâ
That was the âBig Bangâ!
All you have done is take the mysterious unknown that is the origin of the universe, slapped on a white beard and anthropromophized it as an old white dude who gives a crap about the actions of humans.
I find it troubling that religious folks simply canât deal with saying: âwe donât knowâ.
âNothing can come from nothing.â
âWhere did god come from?â
âException to the rules! Didnât you see the beard?â
1 Like
Computers, information processors, donât have âfunctionsâ in the way that you describe them independent of observers who maintain them and pick them out from what would otherwise be random and uncorrelated interactions. What youâre describing as the way that the universe works may be a process of information, though you never actually define what information is or which specific theory among the many available youâre using, but it is one performed not by machines but living things, creatures that actively self-regulate, communicate, and fight against decay. So weâre back to the universe conceived as an organism, weâre back to Whitehead.
That is, if any of what you so confidently predict comes to pass, science is a very contingent endeavor, I donât think its wise to assume so much certainty in predicting its precise future.
Hey Casey_Reeder -
Guess we are back to Whitehead. I think the universe self-defines itself (in that itâs the observer in quantum interactions). Not that itâs conscious of these individual interactions, but I think you canât have sufficiently complicated systems of information and information processing without consciousness. In terms of how the universe works, I think information processing is the forming of linkages or correlations - matter clustering into celestial objects, protons fusing into nuclei, electrons falling into orbitals.
The universe isnât necessarily a living being, but itâs a persistent structure with a continuing existence which probably incorporates many of the characteristics which allow living beings to continue to exist.
Tell that to Lisp (you are a comedy writer, right:D)?
1 Like
So has anybody else read
pretty strange book if you ask me, and thatâs even before you get to the theological BS,
Hey jerwin -
Havenât read it. Just read some of the Amazon reviews. Sounds like it has some good and lots of not-so-good stuff. Nebulous concepts make it easy to go off into the weeds.
However, I think that people today have a better intuitive understanding of consciousness than ever before, at least partially from having to juggle apps and other external information systems. Shifting among various apps isnât the worst way to appreciate constantly shifting focuses within consciousness.
Itâs a book of essays by different contributors, so it has a right to be partially wrong.
1 Like
Use my full language, I say âcomputers, information processors, donât have âfunctionsâ in the way you use them.â You, being the op.
Of course computers have functions in another sense, where we the users pick them out, and the machines are designed and maintained to reach certain goals through these human defined functions, but this is external to the system. You obviously donât understand what Iâm saying or just prefer to glibly attack stawmen.
Here, thereâs a nice quick video explaining some of what Iâm talking about. -
You still havenât defined for me what you mean by information. Itâs common to use the word as a shorthand, nowadays, but unless you have a clear idea what you mean by it its just a magical explaining device, like the ether, caloric, or vital force.
What you describe as âinformation processorsâ are emergent phenomena, processes that have become linked in such a way that their correlated actions result in tendencies fundamentally different from what preceded them. Fine, good, but that doesnât directly tell us what information is.
There are different theories available for what we should consider as information and how it works, which ones we use effect the work that we can consider information to do.
We, of course, have the original technical formulation by Shannon, where its the reduction of uncertainty or entropy in a system, which has had great uses in engineering communication and computer devices, which have outside observers to provide interpretation on that transmitted information.
Its unclear, however, what kind of existence information in this sense can have outside of its particular use by us, outside of any interpretation its just difference. Not the kind of difference that, to quote Gregory Bateson, makes a difference.
Most emergent phenomena such as those you describe in planets and stars form but then begin to break down as they exhaust their substrates, they lack the power to self-regulate, or renew and reproduce themselves, as you describe the universe doing. The only other emergent phenomena that we know to do this is life.
I was being flippant and precisely ninety nine point nine (repeating of course) not serious 
(see what I did there?)
1 Like
p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; line-height: 120%; }
Interesting Attack
(I mean Reply).
If you canât keep
your emotions out of a Scientific Discussion, what good are your
words?
I think you should
read the Community Guidelines before you post attacks.
âWelcome to Boing Boing BBS â thanks for contributing!
Does your reply improve the conversation in some way?
Be kind to your fellow community members.
Constructive criticism is welcome, but criticize ideas,
not people.â
1 Like
Eh, I didnât mean for it to be much of an attack but I wrote it kind of late at night, so some of my insomnia may have crept in. Anyway, I think a lot of scientists, which I am not, get plenty emotional when defending their positions or advocating for a new perspective. Science is an evidence based but not passionless endeavor.
