Universe code size
category: offtopic [glöplog]
http://science.discovery.com/videos/through-the-wormhole-is-the-universe-alive/ @ 00:40
"... there is a very short program that makes this pattern ..."
"... there is a very short program that makes this pattern ..."
science fiction. i love it. maybe he wants to calculate why and how i typed this text here? :D
Even if absurd, isn't it theoretically possible ? :p
That guy makes a circular pattern with a short program (so is a program that creates a rectangular pattern), then feeds a *LOT* of data to it (filling color and visible edge information)...
Interesting.
Anyway,
1) all that theories assumes that our universe has only grow with simple and predictable physics laws. this is something we will maybe never be sure as we are discovering new things and smaller particles every few years. will somebody be one day able to confirm we have found everything? What about quantum mechanics were results cannot be predicted? Could everything be really computed/predicted ?
2) it assumes that our universe was never perturbed by any external source, at its beginning or at some point in the history (by another form of life / intelligence or another universe).
3) Because of butterfly effect, the smallest possible difference between our universe and the computed one will make everything fail (or at least results will be totally different that what we have now).
4) because of 3) that computer should compute and give results with a perfect (thus infinite ?) precision. does it means infinite time of computation ? or maybe we will simulate things low level enough (eg : string theory), so we wont need numbers anymore ?
5) That would mean that our entire lifes are already scripted, we have no possible choice, the future is already predicted and nothing can change anymore. in other words, that sucks (not the theory, just that consequence...).
6) does it means that the computation should take in account that somebody will one day have the idea of creating such a simulation (what we are thinking now) ? (a machine inside the machine, leading possibly to infinite recursivity?)
Anyway,
1) all that theories assumes that our universe has only grow with simple and predictable physics laws. this is something we will maybe never be sure as we are discovering new things and smaller particles every few years. will somebody be one day able to confirm we have found everything? What about quantum mechanics were results cannot be predicted? Could everything be really computed/predicted ?
2) it assumes that our universe was never perturbed by any external source, at its beginning or at some point in the history (by another form of life / intelligence or another universe).
3) Because of butterfly effect, the smallest possible difference between our universe and the computed one will make everything fail (or at least results will be totally different that what we have now).
4) because of 3) that computer should compute and give results with a perfect (thus infinite ?) precision. does it means infinite time of computation ? or maybe we will simulate things low level enough (eg : string theory), so we wont need numbers anymore ?
5) That would mean that our entire lifes are already scripted, we have no possible choice, the future is already predicted and nothing can change anymore. in other words, that sucks (not the theory, just that consequence...).
6) does it means that the computation should take in account that somebody will one day have the idea of creating such a simulation (what we are thinking now) ? (a machine inside the machine, leading possibly to infinite recursivity?)
Warning! Anything in this post may be flagrantly incorrect.
1) Well, simple is not necessarily the same as predictable. See LFSR's and various other digital noise sources. Also remember that quantum particles etc are really just a way of systemizing and explaining empirical data. Maybe there is a different way of systemizing everything which requires less sub-particles to build a complete model.
Quantum uncertainty could be explained as saying that everything depends on everything only if you know the complete state of the universe, can you calculate the next state. So no, everything couldn't be predicted from within the machine.
2) Or floating point (or other) bugs in the machine. :D
3) Of course. We have very little chance of verifying the absolute correctness of any such proposed simulation model.
4) Define perfect/infinite. For example, if you do integer or fractional math, you already have "perfect" precision, although your starting conditions are limited to quantized values. Maybe this is how the software of the underlying world engine works, this is why some things are quantized, and it actually makes sense to do our simulation this way.
5) We have no chance of coming close to simulating everything, so in practice, nothing has changed. If the world is deterministic, but we can't experience it as such, does it actually matter?
6) The problem is fitting everything into our machine. Let's say our universe is limited (because it runs on a machine with limited memory). Let's also say that even though we make things efficient, there's an overhead. To simulate the equivalent of one atom, you need 100 atoms to build all the logic gates etc to simulate one atom. Even if we used up all available space in the universe for simulation, we would only be able to simulate 1/100 of our own universe's size. So, the infinite recursivity, would be self-limiting because the universes would shrink exponentially for each step.
1) Well, simple is not necessarily the same as predictable. See LFSR's and various other digital noise sources. Also remember that quantum particles etc are really just a way of systemizing and explaining empirical data. Maybe there is a different way of systemizing everything which requires less sub-particles to build a complete model.
Quantum uncertainty could be explained as saying that everything depends on everything only if you know the complete state of the universe, can you calculate the next state. So no, everything couldn't be predicted from within the machine.
2) Or floating point (or other) bugs in the machine. :D
3) Of course. We have very little chance of verifying the absolute correctness of any such proposed simulation model.
4) Define perfect/infinite. For example, if you do integer or fractional math, you already have "perfect" precision, although your starting conditions are limited to quantized values. Maybe this is how the software of the underlying world engine works, this is why some things are quantized, and it actually makes sense to do our simulation this way.
5) We have no chance of coming close to simulating everything, so in practice, nothing has changed. If the world is deterministic, but we can't experience it as such, does it actually matter?
6) The problem is fitting everything into our machine. Let's say our universe is limited (because it runs on a machine with limited memory). Let's also say that even though we make things efficient, there's an overhead. To simulate the equivalent of one atom, you need 100 atoms to build all the logic gates etc to simulate one atom. Even if we used up all available space in the universe for simulation, we would only be able to simulate 1/100 of our own universe's size. So, the infinite recursivity, would be self-limiting because the universes would shrink exponentially for each step.
1) smaller particles? my guess is it's all "electromagnetic" 3d waves with amplitude and frequency. just the detected interference makes them appear as "shape". most of all it's not shaped. just in our head.
2) what external source?
3) butterfly effect and chaos? the only effect i see is that's when people believe they are predictable and weak minded try todo things different.
4) it would take ages anyway.
5) philosophical thingy. but a scientific idea is that our own waves (see 1) running in a electromagnetic protected environment to keep it in a solid shape or kinda unperturbed noise level where the fields are small enough to have control of it. this really hard to explain or visualize on a human quantum level... i really can't do that.
6) philo again.
just what came up.
2) what external source?
3) butterfly effect and chaos? the only effect i see is that's when people believe they are predictable and weak minded try todo things different.
4) it would take ages anyway.
5) philosophical thingy. but a scientific idea is that our own waves (see 1) running in a electromagnetic protected environment to keep it in a solid shape or kinda unperturbed noise level where the fields are small enough to have control of it. this really hard to explain or visualize on a human quantum level... i really can't do that.
6) philo again.
just what came up.
It's a trivial simulation - all you need to do is:
1. Find out the initial state of the universe
2. Set that up in your simulation, inside an infinite volume accurate to 1 planck length
3. Simulate it, accounting for all laws of physics (most of which are probably still unknown) down to planck time (i.e. 1x10^43 fps) for roughly 14.5 billion years (in the simulation) to catch up with the present.
At that point of course you can view the present universe in your simulation.. and it breaks down because you've just introduced a feedback loop.
It's another one of those "it's perfectly feasible, we just need infinite energy and time" jobs.
1. Find out the initial state of the universe
2. Set that up in your simulation, inside an infinite volume accurate to 1 planck length
3. Simulate it, accounting for all laws of physics (most of which are probably still unknown) down to planck time (i.e. 1x10^43 fps) for roughly 14.5 billion years (in the simulation) to catch up with the present.
At that point of course you can view the present universe in your simulation.. and it breaks down because you've just introduced a feedback loop.
It's another one of those "it's perfectly feasible, we just need infinite energy and time" jobs.
just a lil more fictional visuals for this thread.
what if you zoom out from earth to the universe as a collection of materia. and then zoom in from earth to an atomic core based on the string theory and they both look like this
isn't this what would make it ultimately recursive. where every lil atomic structure has got a fully recursive state of itself in a complete "copy" of the universe of it's own.
what if you zoom out from earth to the universe as a collection of materia. and then zoom in from earth to an atomic core based on the string theory and they both look like this
isn't this what would make it ultimately recursive. where every lil atomic structure has got a fully recursive state of itself in a complete "copy" of the universe of it's own.
this crap sounds like "i can compress anything to 1 byte". hence the table *LOL*
question:
will "while(1) { printf( (char)(rand()&0x7f)|0x20 ); }" running forever one day print the source of fr-041: debris?
question:
will "while(1) { printf( (char)(rand()&0x7f)|0x20 ); }" running forever one day print the source of fr-041: debris?
just to add a lil scary vision. what if science zooms in on that string theory and manages to get further until they see themselfes recursively.
smashed. :D
smashed. :D
edit: actually i know this is no valid code - just done for u trolls...
Formula:
Universe = 7
Universe = 7
