How does one obtain an infinity of computations in a universe of limited bits of information. For example our universe is thought to be limited to 10^120 bits, the so-called Lloyd Limit.

## Advertising

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 2:54 AM, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 2013/10/24 Chris de Morsella <cdemorse...@yahoo.com> > >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: >> everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Bruno Marchal >> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 23, 2013 5:45 AM >> >> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com >> *Subject:* Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids... >> **** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> On 23 Oct 2013, at 02:15, Chris de Morsella wrote:**** >> >> >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [ >> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com<everything-list@googlegroups.com> >> ] *On Behalf Of *Bruno Marchal >> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 22, 2013 9:50 AM >> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com >> *Subject:* Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids... >> **** >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> On 22 Oct 2013, at 04:20, Russell Standish wrote:**** >> >> >> >> >> **** >> >> On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 02:49:40PM +1300, LizR wrote: >> >> >> **** >> >> I missed that 10^-48 is rather an impressive result. Is that definitive - >> **** >> >> granularity has to be that small - or merely suggestive?**** >> >> **** >> >> It does suggest the possibility of a lot of internal structure inside**** >> >> "fundamental" particles!**** >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> On 22 October 2013 14:43, Richard Ruquist <yann...@gmail.com> wrote:**** >> >> **** >> >> The 10^-48 meters for the upper limit on grannular size of space is better >> **** >> >> compared to the Planck Scale at 10^-35.**** >> >> So space is smooth at least to 10^-13 Planck scales consistent with Fermi >> **** >> >> gamma ray arrival results. Gamma rays a factor of ten different in energy >> **** >> >> arrived from across the universe at the same time whereas granularity >> would**** >> >> delay one measurably.**** >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> >> Indeed this seems an important empiricial result, ruling out certain >> classes of models, including, dare I say, Wolfram's NKS. >> >> However, it does not rule out computationalism, nor the countability >> of observer moments, as I've point out many time, as space-time is >> most likely a model construct, rather than actually being something >> physical "out there". It is something Allen Francom bangs on about too, >> which I tend to agree with, although admittedly I've gotten lost with >> his Brownian Quantum Universe models.**** >> >> **** >> >> >>Computationalism implies non classical granularity possible, but >> quantum granularity is not excluded, with a qubit being described by some >> continuum aI0> + bI1> (a and b complex).**** >> >> **** >> >> The results seem to exclude any theories that rely on a classic >> granularity of space time with the scale this granularity would need to be >> under being pushed far below the Planck scale.**** >> >> **** >> >> >>The basic ontology can be discrete (indeed arithmetical), but the >> physical (and the theological) should reasonably have continuous observable >> (even if those are only the frequency operators, and that *only* the >> probabilities reflect the continuum. Needless to say those are open >> problems).**** >> >> **** >> >> >>I was thinking some recent observations tended to rule out >> granularity. Hard questions, but with comp, some continuum seems to play a >> role in physics (which should be a first person plural universal machines >> view).**** >> >> **** >> >> Bruno**** >> >> **** >> >> If reality arises from scale invariant equations perhaps there is no need >> for a pixelated foundation to act as the smallest addressable chunks and as >> the canvas upon which reality is drawn or projected as it were. Perhaps >> reality really arises at it is observed **** >> >> ** ** >> >> >>... from our points of view. That might even include backtracking, so >> that the physical reality develops and bactrack when some inconsistency is >> met. Open problem with comp, but evidences exists, and it might be that >> physical reality is ever growing.**** >> >> have you understand that if the brain works like a digital machine, the >> physical realitu emerges from some statistics on all computations (which >> exist in arithmetic)?**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Interesting point! It seems you are suggesting that causality – to use an >> Americanism colloquialism (at least amongst auto-mechanics) – may be a >> little “loosey goosey”, in other words it fits well enough in order to be >> fully functional, as far as the macro observer is concerned, but that >> within the realm of the very small (also along the time axis) causality >> becomes less rigorous and these – what would they be called?... reality >> paradox reconciliation algorithms perhaps -- re-write and “fix” transient >> paradoxes, loose ends etc. in order to produce, at least on the observer’s >> macro scale, the smooth perception of rock solid causality. **** >> >> And that as long as on the macro scale of the observer, causality >> continues to operate smoothly (in so far as they are concerned at least) >> then causality can be said to be operative…. Even if it needs to get fixed >> up on the fly as reality manifests becoming observed reality, as long as at >> the functional level its Laws stand then it would seem to all still work >> out. **** >> >> This also fits with the mind-bending quantum scale universe –wormholes, >> backwards vectors of time and the foaming sea of virtual particle pairs >> popping in and out of our universe – at the femtoscale it all seems very >> chaotic and non-casual (at least in the simple linear manner we experience >> causality and the flow of time) **** >> >> >> >> **** >> >> >>>>so that if it were possible to scale infinitely down it would emerge >> and continue to emerge at whatever minimum scale could be achieved. If >> reality is information and information can be described with equations that >> are scale invariant (such as for example vector graphics versus pixel based >> graphics, or fractal geometry) then a computational model can still >> describe the entire universal relationship and identity sets even when >> there is seemingly no end (that we have found) to how small a point of >> spacetime can be. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> OK. But computationalism ("I am a machine) entails the existence of at >> least one observable which relies on real numbers" and is not completely >> turing emulable. It might be the quantum frequency operator (describe well >> by Graham and Preskill's course). **** >> >> ** ** >> >> One could say that “I” cannot know itself without some outside >> perspective upon which to reflect its being and by which to measure it. Can >> a pure I – i.e. singularity – know anything about itself, even that it >> exists, without introducing some outside perspective? I find that hard to >> conceive of.**** >> >> I am not so sure about the assumption that that outside perspective is >> not itself also a computational thread of reality manifest and that both >> the observer and the outside thing that enables the observer to have >> something against which to observe are not both themselves – >> non-communicating – elements of some larger equation/model/dataset. The >> observer element is unaware that the observable element (which is also >> unaware of any super-connection) and itself are member elements of some >> super-model…**** >> >> And so on and so forth…. This leads to a hall of mirrors, of an >> ever-receding infinite series of ever larger supersets…. To which both >> observer and observable belong unbeknown to each other… and so on and so >> forth for each super set in turn and the set of everything that is >> observable by it yet is experienced as being external to it, by it.**** >> >> Clearly not satisfactory or ideal. Perhaps on some basic level the >> universe is a circular queue lol. **** >> >> It seems to me that all that is strictly necessary is for the observer to >> be convinced that the observable is fundamentally external to the universe >> of things it considers to be itself (and symmetrically so for the >> observable, which may act as actor in different roles) >> As long as this condition is satisfied then the observer and the >> observable are free to act as if one was truly external to the other, even >> if at some super-level they are in in fact lower level elements of some >> superset and transcendental model that encompasses them both (and which >> leads to a hall of mirrors, unless we can admit the possibility of a >> circular queue so astronomically huge that the serpent head will never ever >> know that it is actually eating its own tail. )**** >> >> ** ** >> >> >>>>So long as this does not much matter to the computational theory >> itself then it is unaffected by this very fine grained measurement of the >> lack of any fine structure in spacetime.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Keep in mind the difference between 1) the computationalist hypothesis in >> "philosophy of mind", and 2) the hypothesis that the universe is the >> product of some program.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> 2) implies 1)**** >> >> ** ** >> >> but**** >> >> ** ** >> >> 1) implies the negation of 2) (this can be explained with the thought >> experiment like in the UDA).**** >> >> ** ** >> >> In particular 2) implies the negation of 2), and so is self-contradictory. >> **** >> >> ** ** >> >> Bruno**** >> >> ** ** >> >> You lost me here… why does 1) negate 2)? >> > > Because 1 implies matter is the result of an infinity of computations > below the substitution level (there is an infinity of computations going > through your current state). 2 implies matter is the result of one specific > computation. 2 implies 1, 1 implies ~2 => 2 => ~2. > > Quentin > > >> **** >> >> Is it because 1) requires some external observable that is not a part of >> itself**** >> >> As seems suggested by saying 2) implies the negation of 2) **** >> >> Which would be the hall of mirrors of the observing entity requiring an >> external observable in order to even know it exists. Unless something could >> be perfectly self-referential, which I sense you doubt.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> perhaps just the sound of me flailing around J**** >> >> Chris**** >> >> ** ** >> >> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/**** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.**** >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> > > > > -- > All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.