Am Fr, 12. Aug 2022, um 19:56, schrieb Jason Resch: > > > On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 2:04 AM Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> wrote: >> __ >> Hi Jason, >> >> This is really interesting, thanks for sharing. Since Wolfram started going >> in this direction, something that occurs to me is this: hypergraphs are >> perhaps one of the most general mathematical constructs that can be >> conceived of. Almost everything else can be seen as a special case of >> hypergraphs. Like you say, with the update rules, we shouldn't be surprised >> if they are equivalent to the UD. My scepticism is this: is anything being >> gained in terms of explanatory power? Should we be surprised that such a >> powerful representation can contain the rules of our reality? I do admit >> that I have to study these ideas in more detail, and there is something >> really compelling about hypergraphs + update rules. > > That is a good question. I am not familiar with them myself, but my > understanding is they do not provide for any form of computation beyond what > is turing computable, so in that sense, I don't know that they provide any > additional explanatory power beyond the simple statement that all > computations exist. > > A commenter on my site recently asked, what can we say about the "computer" > that computes all these computations. My reply was: >> >> "There is no single one. There are infinite varieties of different TMs, and >> all can exist Platonically/Arithmetically. Gregory Chaitin discovered an >> equation whose structure models LISP computers. There are likewise other >> equations corresponding to the Java Virtual Machine, and the Commodore 64.
This is really interesting, I didn't know about that! Can you provide some references? >> All these Turing machines, and their execution traces of every computer >> program they can run, exist in math in the same sense that the Mandelbrot >> set or the decimal expansion of Pi exist in math. Despite the infinite >> variety of architectures for different Turing machines, their equivalence >> (in the Turing computability sense) makes the question of “Which Turing >> machine is running this universe?” impossible to answer, beyond saying, “all >> of them are.”" I agree. > I think hypergraphs, then, would be just one more mathematical object we > could add to the heap of Turing universal mathematical objects which could > (and would, if Platonism is correct) underlie the computations of our > universe/experiences. > >> >> >> "As soon as one starts talking about “running programs” some people will >> immediately ask “On what computer?” But a key intellectual point is that >> computational processes can ultimately be defined completely abstractly, >> without reference to anything like a physical computer. " > > My same reply also provided an explanation/argument, which is applicable to > anyone who accepts simple truths concerning abstract objects have definite > and objective true/false values, paired with a rejection of philosophical > zombies. I think John rejects zombies, so he would have to reject objective > truth to believe a physical computer is necessary to produce observers. Below > is what I wrote: > >> The way I like to think about it is this: If one is willing to believe that >> truth values for mathematical relations like “2 + 2 = 4” can exist and be >> true independently of the universe or someone writing it down, or a >> mathematician thinking about it, that is all you need. > >> For if the truth values of certain simple relations have an independent >> existence, then so to do the truth values of far more complex equations. >> Let’s call the Diophantine equation that computes the Wave Function of the >> Hubble Volume of our universe “Equation X”. Now then, it becomes a question >> of pure arithmetic, whether it is true or false that: > >> “In Equation X, does the universal state variable U, at time step T contain >> a pattern of electrons that encode to the string: >> ‘why does the existence of Universal Equations imply the existence of >> iterative search processes for solutions?'” > >> If that question has a definitive objective truth, then it is the case that >> in the universe U, at time step T, in equation X, there is some person in >> that universe who had a conscious thought, and wrote it down and it got >> organized into a pattern of electrons which anyone who inspects this vast >> equation with its huge variables could see. > >> Once you get to this point, the last and final step is to reject the >> possibility that the patterns found in these equations, which behave and act >> like they are conscious, and claim to be conscious, are philosophical >> zombies. In other words, to accept that they are conscious beings, just like >> those who exist in “physical” universes (assuming there is any possible >> distinction between a physical universe, and a physical universe computed by >> a Platonic or Arithmetic Turing Machine). I tend to agree with you, because this is the most parsimonious explanation of reality than assuming some mysterious process/mechanism/entity that makes it so that this particular Universe and this particular state of affairs and this particular moment in time is real and others are not. Telmo > > Jason > > >> >> >> Oh boy, John Clark is not going to like this :) >> >> Telmo. >> >> Am Do, 11. Aug 2022, um 20:35, schrieb Jason Resch: >>> https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2021/04/why-does-the-universe-exist-some-perspectives-from-our-physics-project/ >>> >>> >>> I found this fascinating. It appears to have many similarities with the >>> type of physical reality that emerges from then universal dovetailer, with >>> new ways of explaining it and some new insights. >>> >>> Jason >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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 [email protected]. >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUiFsW5z1nPmXdZUNS2_StB%2B_cZjP5tX6gTndExtfxJOvg%40mail.gmail.com >>> >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUiFsW5z1nPmXdZUNS2_StB%2B_cZjP5tX6gTndExtfxJOvg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 [email protected]. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3c907042-e54c-44e2-8969-6d02cd2db5b4%40www.fastmail.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3c907042-e54c-44e2-8969-6d02cd2db5b4%40www.fastmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. > > > -- > 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 [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUhMnJOWuCgGyNbGHPD2ULg0tEp%2BF7Cz0_Z8QEs7TNDe9w%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUhMnJOWuCgGyNbGHPD2ULg0tEp%2BF7Cz0_Z8QEs7TNDe9w%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e40b54df-4d3a-465f-b914-514e49651177%40www.fastmail.com.
