Oh, I read one of the links and it gave a partial answer to my question.
Under our assumptions, we can immediately predict that our universe won't get many times older than it is now, that large scale quantum computation will not work well (essentially because it would require too many computational resources in interfering ``parallel universes''), and that any apparent randomness in any physical observation is in fact due to some yet unknown but fast pseudo-random generator which we should try to discover.
Doesn't answer anything. If there was a computer, it would have to reside in its own universe or area, which reduces back to our situation (similar to how a creator deity cannot be a "first cause").
Plus, it would have to deal with our non-computable universe, which means it wouldn't be a Turning machine (or equivalent). Which would be OK (in theory), but what about the computer simulating the universe it is in? You run into Gödelic problems at this rate (think the last few chapters of Gödel, Escher, Bach).
it would have to deal with our non-computable universe What reason do you have for stating the the universe is non-computable? This is the main question that I've been struggling with for a few weeks.
Doesn't answer anything. Well, about origins, certainly, but I'm mostly wondering about this particular universe. Can *this* universe run on an abstract computer?
You run into Gödelic problems at this rate I need to brush up on my Godel. I last studied his work back in 2002 and I'm a bit fuzzy on most of it. I really need to brush up on the implications of Godel's incompleteness theorem, I think.
It certainly makes me think of Simulacron-3/The Thirteenth Floor. I'm not a big fan of the official determinations that Zuse made (especially since he was so steeped in computers himself), but the theoretical branches from his work are far more realistic and interesting, in my opinion.
His work was significantly "computer-centric", as he was trying to break it down into programs so forth (so it seems to me). I'm definitely a fan of the extension of that theory to include a "virtual world", however.
If we run with Moore's Law (even though Moore's Law is bust now), there's nothing that would stop The Sims, for example, from becoming so realistic a simulation of life that the Sims themselves would find that they are sentient. Once you add the consideration and possibility that we are merely such a simulation, it becomes entirely feasible. But then, to suggest that we are merely a tip on the quantum iceberg is something that most of us already believed anyway. =)
Sometimes I think about the theory that this universe is actually a simulation of some kind. There are two things I really like about this theory.
1. It almost seems to me like this is a simulation of a Newtonian universe that is implemented on a quantum mechanical universe, because all of the quantum effects mostly cancel out on any scale beyond the very tiny. Observation of some kind is required to collapse the quantum wave form. From a computer programming perspective this would be an efficient use of memory, because you would only have to compute the parts of the universe that a living being was observing and the rest merely exists as mathematical equations.
2. It would make sense of the idea that we seem to be alone in the universe, it seems to me that if life is a natural phenomena there shouldn't be exactly one instance of it, either it shouldn't be here, or there should be many instances of life, and if that is the case it seems like one of them should have become smart enough to overrun the universe by now and we should have evidence of it. If this is a simulation of some purpose, it would make sense that there might be only be one planet with life.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2007-01-10 04:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-10 04:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-10 04:31 pm (UTC)Doesn't answer anything. If there was a computer, it would have to reside in its own universe or area, which reduces back to our situation (similar to how a creator deity cannot be a "first cause").
Plus, it would have to deal with our non-computable universe, which means it wouldn't be a Turning machine (or equivalent). Which would be OK (in theory), but what about the computer simulating the universe it is in? You run into Gödelic problems at this rate (think the last few chapters of Gödel, Escher, Bach).
no subject
Date: 2007-01-10 04:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-10 05:52 pm (UTC)What reason do you have for stating the the universe is non-computable? This is the main question that I've been struggling with for a few weeks.
Doesn't answer anything.
Well, about origins, certainly, but I'm mostly wondering about this particular universe. Can *this* universe run on an abstract computer?
You run into Gödelic problems at this rate
I need to brush up on my Godel. I last studied his work back in 2002 and I'm a bit fuzzy on most of it. I really need to brush up on the implications of Godel's incompleteness theorem, I think.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-10 06:39 pm (UTC)All it needs to do is run algorithmic processes. It doesn't need to be some giant cosmic Pentium running in a giganto-verse of some kind.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-10 06:00 pm (UTC)His work was significantly "computer-centric", as he was trying to break it down into programs so forth (so it seems to me). I'm definitely a fan of the extension of that theory to include a "virtual world", however.
If we run with Moore's Law (even though Moore's Law is bust now), there's nothing that would stop The Sims, for example, from becoming so realistic a simulation of life that the Sims themselves would find that they are sentient. Once you add the consideration and possibility that we are merely such a simulation, it becomes entirely feasible. But then, to suggest that we are merely a tip on the quantum iceberg is something that most of us already believed anyway. =)
no subject
Date: 2007-01-10 06:44 pm (UTC)Some of the stuff between the shiny outside and the ripe core is not very spectacular. Still, a useful jumping-off point for further conceptual play.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-10 08:54 pm (UTC)1. It almost seems to me like this is a simulation of a Newtonian universe that is implemented on a quantum mechanical universe, because all of the quantum effects mostly cancel out on any scale beyond the very tiny. Observation of some kind is required to collapse the quantum wave form. From a computer programming perspective this would be an efficient use of memory, because you would only have to compute the parts of the universe that a living being was observing and the rest merely exists as mathematical equations.
2. It would make sense of the idea that we seem to be alone in the universe, it seems to me that if life is a natural phenomena there shouldn't be exactly one instance of it, either it shouldn't be here, or there should be many instances of life, and if that is the case it seems like one of them should have become smart enough to overrun the universe by now and we should have evidence of it. If this is a simulation of some purpose, it would make sense that there might be only be one planet with life.
Dead serious
Date: 2007-01-11 04:20 am (UTC)Re: Dead serious
Date: 2007-01-11 04:36 am (UTC)Re: Dead serious
Date: 2007-01-11 04:42 am (UTC)Re: Dead serious
Date: 2007-01-11 05:02 am (UTC)Re: Dead serious
Date: 2007-01-11 05:29 am (UTC)Re: Dead serious
Date: 2007-01-11 03:10 pm (UTC)Re: Dead serious
Date: 2007-01-11 05:19 pm (UTC)Re: Dead serious
Date: 2007-01-11 05:24 pm (UTC)I have some vague ideas about the internet as a plane of existence or other level of reality... i should probably give it more thought.
Re: Dead serious
Date: 2007-01-11 05:25 pm (UTC)That's more or less what I'm suggesting... a bit.. Needs work, though.