Re: String theory and Cellular Automata
Thanks John, now I don't feel so bad. Grin For what it's worth, my plain-English translations of the terms you mention: _mass_ = the intrinsic [its own] resistance to being pushed of something that isn't otherwise stuck down; _energy_ = motion, particularly as measured and accounted for in scientific terms, ie energy is to science and engineering what money is to economics and housekeeping; _space-time_ = where and when everything is and happens; _matter_ = anything that can fall to bits or otherwise disintegrate and become dirt. NB: I have no problem with the word 'belief'. I think we only get into real problems if we don't acknowledge what is opinion and belief. Ultimately belief is all for us who claim to be aware that we exist. 'Knowledge' is just tested beliefs that have so far proved to be the most effective and efficient descriptions of our world. I happen to *believe* that our experience, to the extent that we are aware of it and at least part of the time feel sufficiently confident to call consciousness, is constructed by and within our own brains - with help from our friends and relations of course. A little thought shows that, if what I am assuming is true, then by definition all we ever have is belief and science is just the most effective method of deriving ['constructing'] the best descriptions for dealing with practical problems and challenges. In particular scientific method is good where the objects of observation and manipulation do not learn from their experiences, unless it is only mechanisms and parts of the learning process that are being studied. Scientific method can assist with other methods in dealing with people and their/our problems but memory, self-reference, and reflection mean that we are changed by what we do and thus are not all interchangeable like atoms and molecules are [etc]. Regards Mark Peaty CDES [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/ John Mikes wrote: Mark, let me play with your postulate (plain English) vs your text YOU wrote. To be translated into plain language: Mass, energy, space-time, even 'matter'. (The last one SOUNDS like plain English, yet not in the context we use it.) Don't take it too hard. We are used to this lingo, after the 1000th level of applying its consequences all assumptions sound real. We THINK we understand them. (Did not write: believe, because Russell does not take it kindly if I hint to 'religious science' beliefs.) I like your idea to call the pre-inflational 'seed' of our universe a very concentrated (massive?) central(?) point. I faced the problem in my narrative-writing to eliminate the dreamed-up 'inflation' (dreamed up - just to have a better fit of the equations applied by the physical(ist) cosmology-narrative) and ended up with the pop-up 'seed' of some complexity (postulated in the spaceless-timeless plenitude of everything - for logical reasons I do not go into now) and got assigned to form THIS universe - a system WITH the ordinates space and time (whatever they are). Now the transition from a spaceless construct into a 'spaced' one means the emergence of (a huge) space from a zero one (= no space at all), which could be mistaken by the cosmo- physicists as inflation. Glory saved. Time ditto, when the originating concepts formed from a timeless into a timed system, the forming occurrences happened in that VERY first instant (introducing TIME into the timelessness), explaining the calculated? times of the first BB-steps as in the 1st - 1^-42th sec, or 1^-32th sec froze out this or that. Weird. Then came the inflation (space). All nicely calculated in the quantitative correlations deduced from our observations in the 'expanded' (i.e. unconcentrated) physical system's rules. And - propagated linearly (reversing as was linearly retrogaded) in the nonlinear development we live in. I don't think Brent and you are talking from the same platform. Nor do I. I don't know how 'densly matter-energy was packed in the early Universe' (it was before my time) - I don't have to assign different characteristics to some 'early' universe, if I accept that our ideas of the material world are fictive. (Some say: consciousness before matter and NO primitive material world). The best John M On 3/24/07, *Mark Peaty* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No. I don't know of any cosmogony that postulates a massive central point. They generally assume zero mass-energy. Well, OK, put that into plain-English. I think that in doing so you have to explain why the e= m.c^2 mass-energy 'equivalence' is not a problem. You can 'assume zero mass-energy' to start with, but straight after that you did have mass and energy to spare. Furthermore I understand that it has been all of space-time that has been expanding from the 'beginning' and carrying 'matter'
Re: String theory and Cellular Automata
No. I don't know of any cosmogony that postulates a massive central point. They generally assume zero mass-energy. Well, OK, put that into plain-English. I think that in doing so you have to explain why the e=m.c^2 mass-energy 'equivalence' is not a problem. You can 'assume zero mass-energy' to start with, but straight after that you did have mass and energy to spare. Furthermore I understand that it has been all of space-time that has been expanding from the 'beginning' and carrying 'matter' with and within it and indeed I think it is more correct to see matter as no more and no less than regions of concentrated, convoluted and self-referencing space-time. This still leaves me with the idea that our universe, at least prior to its 'inflation', WAS indescribably concentrated, and in some way very dense, even if we are not allowed to call this mass/energy. What was it? My understanding now of the Hubble red-shift is that the overall expansion of space-time, through which the ancient energy signals have been passing, is what has stretched the wave lengths to the extent that has been calculated. A corollary of this is that energy and matter were much more densely packed in the early universe. Regards Mark Peaty CDES [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/ Brent Meeker wrote: Mark Peaty wrote: Brent, how is this for whimsy: what are now called black holes, and apparently quite well verified [and totally not falsified], are conceived to be regions of space time in which gravity is so strong that nothing from within can escape. Each black hole is centred upon and generated by a mass of collapsed matter within which all other forces have been overwhelmed by gravity so that the mass is always accelerating inwards towards a 'singularity'. The 'big bang' theory of where the universe came from appears to posit some indescribably more massive central starting point from which everything now in existence came. No. I don't know of any cosmogony that postulates a massive central point. They generally assume zero mass-energy. To me there is something wrong with this idea because there is no reason for thinking that the strength of gravity now is any more than it has been in the past, so how come everything managed to escape? Does not compute says I. So how about this: There was never any 'singularity' in the sense of an isolated ball of energy/mass which exploded 'outwards' to spread itself ever more thinly through the 'empty' space-time that grew and continues to grow. All current theories suppose that spacetime is expanding - not that a ball of matter expands into a pre-existing spacetime. Brent Meeker Instead what actually happened, for reasons as yet very unclear, the infinitely extended plenum of completely entangled and connected, spaceless, energy/mass broke. It cracked open and a bubble developed. This bubble of what we now call space-time grew because all the rest of spaceless energy/mass was and still is all connected and entangled so it keeps tightly to itself. What we infer as an expanding universe is in some sense 'within' but effectively separated out of black hole stuff. Entropy is increasing because the inner surface of our bubble universe is expanding at the speed of light. What we consider to be matter [stuff] is built out of the flotsam left over as the inner surface of the bubble disintegrated, possibly in some sort of fractal manner. If this were all true, then what is 'out there' beyond the edge of our universe is basically the same as the singularity at the centre of each black hole. :-) Regards Mark Peaty CDES [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/ Brent Meeker wrote: Mohsen Ravanbakhsh wrote: Hi, It was an interesting hypothesis, When we're talking black holes we should consider them as the sources of reduction of entropy; since when something gets into a black hole we have no more information about it and so the overall information of the world decreases and the same happens to entropy. In your the world is moving toward black holes so the entropy of the world should decrease! But that seems not to be the the case, it's somehow inconvenient. It's also wrong, according to our best theory of BHs, the entropy of a BH is proportional to it's surface area and the maximum entropy configuration of a given mass is for it to form a BH. The information interpretation of this is that the information that seems to be lost by something falling into a black hole is encoded in correlations between what falls in and the black-body Hawking radiation from the surface. So the entropy increases in that microscopically encoded information becomes unavailable to use macroscopic beings. This is where all entropy comes from anyway - the dynamical evolution of QM is deterministic (at least in the MWI) and so information
Re: String theory and Cellular Automata
Mark, let me play with your postulate (plain English) vs your text YOU wrote. To be translated into plain language: Mass, energy, space-time, even 'matter'. (The last one SOUNDS like plain English, yet not in the context we use it.) Don't take it too hard. We are used to this lingo, after the 1000th level of applying its consequences all assumptions sound real. We THINK we understand them. (Did not write: believe, because Russell does not take it kindly if I hint to 'religious science' beliefs.) I like your idea to call the pre-inflational 'seed' of our universe a very concentrated (massive?) central(?) point. I faced the problem in my narrative-writing to eliminate the dreamed-up 'inflation' (dreamed up - just to have a better fit of the equations applied by the physical(ist) cosmology-narrative) and ended up with the pop-up 'seed' of some complexity (postulated in the spaceless-timeless plenitude of everything - for logical reasons I do not go into now) and got assigned to form THIS universe - a system WITH the ordinates space and time (whatever they are). Now the transition from a spaceless construct into a 'spaced' one means the emergence of (a huge) space from a zero one (= no space at all), which could be mistaken by the cosmo- physicists as inflation. Glory saved. Time ditto, when the originating concepts formed from a timeless into a timed system, the forming occurrences happened in that VERY first instant (introducing TIME into the timelessness), explaining the calculated? times of the first BB-steps as in the 1st - 1^-42th sec, or 1^-32th sec froze out this or that. Weird. Then came the inflation (space). All nicely calculated in the quantitative correlations deduced from our observations in the 'expanded' (i.e. unconcentrated) physical system's rules. And - propagated linearly (reversing as was linearly retrogaded) in the nonlinear development we live in. I don't think Brent and you are talking from the same platform. Nor do I. I don't know how 'densly matter-energy was packed in the early Universe' (it was before my time) - I don't have to assign different characteristics to some 'early' universe, if I accept that our ideas of the material world are fictive. (Some say: consciousness before matter and NO primitive material world). The best John M On 3/24/07, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No. I don't know of any cosmogony that postulates a massive central point. They generally assume zero mass-energy. Well, OK, put that into plain-English. I think that in doing so you have to explain why the e=m.c^2 mass-energy 'equivalence' is not a problem. You can 'assume zero mass-energy' to start with, but straight after that you did have mass and energy to spare. Furthermore I understand that it has been all of space-time that has been expanding from the 'beginning' and carrying 'matter' with and within it and indeed I think it is more correct to see matter as no more and no less than regions of concentrated, convoluted and self-referencing space-time. This still leaves me with the idea that our universe, at least prior to its 'inflation', WAS indescribably concentrated, and in some way very dense, even if we are not allowed to call this mass/energy. What was it? My understanding now of the Hubble red-shift is that the overall expansion of space-time, through which the ancient energy signals have been passing, is what has stretched the wave lengths to the extent that has been calculated. A corollary of this is that energy and matter were much more densely packed in the early universe. Regards Mark Peaty CDES [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: String theory and Cellular Automata
Brent, how is this for whimsy: what are now called black holes, and apparently quite well verified [and totally not falsified], are conceived to be regions of space time in which gravity is so strong that nothing from within can escape. Each black hole is centred upon and generated by a mass of collapsed matter within which all other forces have been overwhelmed by gravity so that the mass is always accelerating inwards towards a 'singularity'. The 'big bang' theory of where the universe came from appears to posit some indescribably more massive central starting point from which everything now in existence came. To me there is something wrong with this idea because there is no reason for thinking that the strength of gravity now is any more than it has been in the past, so how come everything managed to escape? Does not compute says I. So how about this: There was never any 'singularity' in the sense of an isolated ball of energy/mass which exploded 'outwards' to spread itself ever more thinly through the 'empty' space-time that grew and continues to grow. Instead what actually happened, for reasons as yet very unclear, the infinitely extended plenum of completely entangled and connected, spaceless, energy/mass broke. It cracked open and a bubble developed. This bubble of what we now call space-time grew because all the rest of spaceless energy/mass was and still is all connected and entangled so it keeps tightly to itself. What we infer as an expanding universe is in some sense 'within' but effectively separated out of black hole stuff. Entropy is increasing because the inner surface of our bubble universe is expanding at the speed of light. What we consider to be matter [stuff] is built out of the flotsam left over as the inner surface of the bubble disintegrated, possibly in some sort of fractal manner. If this were all true, then what is 'out there' beyond the edge of our universe is basically the same as the singularity at the centre of each black hole. :-) Regards Mark Peaty CDES [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/ Brent Meeker wrote: Mohsen Ravanbakhsh wrote: Hi, It was an interesting hypothesis, When we're talking black holes we should consider them as the sources of reduction of entropy; since when something gets into a black hole we have no more information about it and so the overall information of the world decreases and the same happens to entropy. In your the world is moving toward black holes so the entropy of the world should decrease! But that seems not to be the the case, it's somehow inconvenient. It's also wrong, according to our best theory of BHs, the entropy of a BH is proportional to it's surface area and the maximum entropy configuration of a given mass is for it to form a BH. The information interpretation of this is that the information that seems to be lost by something falling into a black hole is encoded in correlations between what falls in and the black-body Hawking radiation from the surface. So the entropy increases in that microscopically encoded information becomes unavailable to use macroscopic beings. This is where all entropy comes from anyway - the dynamical evolution of QM is deterministic (at least in the MWI) and so information is never lost or gained. Brent Meeker If we accept the idea of CA as the fundamental building blocks of the nature we should explain: why some patterns and not the others. Some that have lead to our physical laws and not the other possibilities? In this situation the idea of multiverse might help. On 3/15/07, *Colin Hales* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, See previous posts here re EC - Entropy Calculus. This caught my eye, thought I'd throw in my $0.02 worth. I have been working on this idea for a long while now. Am writing it up as part of my PhD process. The EC is a lambda calculus formalism that depicts reality. It's actual instantation with one particular and unbelievable massive axiom set is the universe we are in. The instantation is literally the CA of the EC primitives. As cognitive agents within it, made of the EC-CA, describing it, we can use abstracted simplified EC on a computational substrate (also made of the CA...a computer!) to explore/describe the universe. But the abstractions (like string theory) are not the universe - they are merely depictions at a certain spatiotemporal observer-scales. Reality is a literal ongoing massively parallel theorem proving exercise in Entropy Calculus. The EC universe has literally computed you and me and my dogs. Coherence/Bifurcation points in the CA correspond to new descriptive 'levels of underlying reality' - emergence. Atoms, Molecules, Crystalsetc... One of the descriptive abstractions of the EC-CA is called
Re: String theory and Cellular Automata
On 3/14/07, Colin Hales [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: See previous posts here re EC - Entropy Calculus. This caught my eye, thought I'd throw in my $0.02 worth. I have been working on this idea for a long while now. Am writing it up as part of my PhD process. Makes *complete* sense to me, with the understanding that it's necessarily *incomplete*. - Jef --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: String theory and Cellular Automata
Thanks. On 3/20/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You could be interested by a paper introducing String theory as a syntactical logical structure by the other Schmidhuber (Juergen's brother Christof): Here: http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0011065 What are strings made of? The possibility is discussed that strings are purely mathematical objects, made of logical axioms. More precisely, proofs in simple logical calculi are represented by graphs that can be interpreted as the Feynman diagrams of certain large-N field theories. Each vertex represents an axiom. Strings arise, because these large-N theories are dual to string theories. These ``logical quantum field theories'' map theorems into the space of functions of two parameters: N and the coupling constant. Undecidable theorems might be related to nonperturbative field theory effects. This is infinitely better than Wolfram pure classical CA approach which has no rules for distinguishing 1 and 3 person notion, and so miss the idea of internal emerging physical laws. Le 14-mars-07, à 10:23, Mohsen Ravanbakhsh a écrit : I'm thinking there's some kind of similarity between string theory and depicting the world as a big CA. In String theory we have some vibrating strings which have some kind of influence on each other and can for different matters and fields. CA can play such role of changing patterns and of course the influence is evident. Different rules in CA might correspond to various basic shapes of vibration in strings... I don't know much about S.T. but the idea of such mapping seems very interesting. -- Mohsen Ravanbakhsh. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- Mohsen Ravanbakhsh, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: String theory and Cellular Automata
You could be interested by a paper introducing String theory as a syntactical logical structure by the other Schmidhuber (Juergen's brother Christof): Here: http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0011065 What are strings made of? The possibility is discussed that strings are purely mathematical objects, made of logical axioms. More precisely, proofs in simple logical calculi are represented by graphs that can be interpreted as the Feynman diagrams of certain large-N field theories. Each vertex represents an axiom. Strings arise, because these large-N theories are dual to string theories. These ``logical quantum field theories'' map theorems into the space of functions of two parameters: N and the coupling constant. Undecidable theorems might be related to nonperturbative field theory effects. This is infinitely better than Wolfram pure classical CA approach which has no rules for distinguishing 1 and 3 person notion, and so miss the idea of internal emerging physical laws. Le 14-mars-07, à 10:23, Mohsen Ravanbakhsh a écrit : I'm thinking there's some kind of similarity between string theory and depicting the world as a big CA. In String theory we have some vibrating strings which have some kind of influence on each other and can for different matters and fields. CA can play such role of changing patterns and of course the influence is evident. Different rules in CA might correspond to various basic shapes of vibration in strings... I don't know much about S.T. but the idea of such mapping seems very interesting. -- Mohsen Ravanbakhsh. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: String theory and Cellular Automata
Bruno: thanks for the info. Very educational (although I skip reading Christof's entire text). From your excerpt: I have a 2nd question: how about waves? they must be made of the same 'stuff' as the 'strings', maybe in a lesser number of dimensions. And let me skip my retrograde series of going through (the) other concepts... They are all deductions from the (as you put it) primitive material world view, and its closed model, called physics. At the end of my 'skipped' series you may find 'numbers', I may wish to go further (but cannot?) Regards John M - Original Message - From: Bruno Marchal To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 10:25 AM Subject: Re: String theory and Cellular Automata You could be interested by a paper introducing String theory as a syntactical logical structure by the other Schmidhuber (Juergen's brother Christof): Here: http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0011065 What are strings made of? The possibility is discussed that strings are purely mathematical objects, made of logical axioms. More precisely, proofs in simple logical calculi are represented by graphs that can be interpreted as the Feynman diagrams of certain large-N field theories. Each vertex represents an axiom. Strings arise, because these large-N theories are dual to string theories. These ``logical quantum field theories'' map theorems into the space of functions of two parameters: N and the coupling constant. Undecidable theorems might be related to nonperturbative field theory effects. This is infinitely better than Wolfram pure classical CA approach which has no rules for distinguishing 1 and 3 person notion, and so miss the idea of internal emerging physical laws. Le 14-mars-07, à 10:23, Mohsen Ravanbakhsh a écrit : I'm thinking there's some kind of similarity between string theory and depicting the world as a big CA. In String theory we have some vibrating strings which have some kind of influence on each other and can for different matters and fields. CA can play such role of changing patterns and of course the influence is evident. Different rules in CA might correspond to various basic shapes of vibration in strings... I don't know much about S.T. but the idea of such mapping seems very interesting. -- Mohsen Ravanbakhsh. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.15/728 - Release Date: 3/20/2007 8:07 AM --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: String theory and Cellular Automata
Hi, It was an interesting hypothesis, When we're talking black holes we should consider them as the sources of reduction of entropy; since when something gets into a black hole we have no more information about it and so the overall information of the world decreases and the same happens to entropy. In your the world is moving toward black holes so the entropy of the world should decrease! But that seems not to be the the case, it's somehow inconvenient. If we accept the idea of CA as the fundamental building blocks of the nature we should explain: why some patterns and not the others. Some that have lead to our physical laws and not the other possibilities? In this situation the idea of multiverse might help. On 3/15/07, Colin Hales [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, See previous posts here re EC - Entropy Calculus. This caught my eye, thought I'd throw in my $0.02 worth. I have been working on this idea for a long while now. Am writing it up as part of my PhD process. The EC is a lambda calculus formalism that depicts reality. It's actual instantation with one particular and unbelievable massive axiom set is the universe we are in. The instantation is literally the CA of the EC primitives. As cognitive agents within it, made of the EC-CA, describing it, we can use abstracted simplified EC on a computational substrate (also made of the CA...a computer!) to explore/describe the universe. But the abstractions (like string theory) are not the universe - they are merely depictions at a certain spatiotemporal observer-scales. Reality is a literal ongoing massively parallel theorem proving exercise in Entropy Calculus. The EC universe has literally computed you and me and my dogs. Coherence/Bifurcation points in the CA correspond to new descriptive 'levels of underlying reality' - emergence. Atoms, Molecules, Crystalsetc... One of the descriptive abstractions of the EC-CA is called 'Maxwells-Equations'. Another is the Navier-Stokes equations (different context), another is Quantum Mechanics, the standard particle model and so on. None of them are reality - merely depictions of a surface behaviour of it. In the model there is only one universe and only one justified or needed. Which is a bummer if you insist on talking about multiverses.they are not parsimonious or necessary to explain the universe. I can't help it if they are unnecessary! You know , it's funny what EC makes the universe look like. the boundary of the universe is the collective event horizon of all black holes. On the other side is nothing. The endlessly increasing size of black holes is what corresponds to the endlessly increasing entropy (disorder - which is the dispersal of the deep universe back to nothing at the event horizons). The measure of the surface area of the black holes is the entropy of the whole universe. The process of dispersal at the boundary makes it look like the universe is expanding - to us from the inside. The reality is actually the reverse - the spatiotemporal circumstances are of shrinkage - due to the loss of the redundant fabric of the very deepest layers of reality being eaten by the black holes, dragging it inwhilst the organisation of collections of it at the uppermost layers is maintained (like space, atoms etc). (Imagine a jumper knitted of wool with a huge number of threads in the yarn - remove the redundant threads from the inside and the jumper shrinks, but is still a jumper, just getting smaller(everything else around looks like it's getting bigger from the point of view of being the jumper.) our future?...we'll all blink out of existence as the event horizons of black holes that grow and grow and grow and do it faster and faster and faster until. merging and merging until they all merge and then PFT! NOTHING. and the whole process starts again with a new axiom setround and round and roundwe go... Weird huh? So I reckon you're on the right track. You don't have to believe me about any of it... but I can guarantee you'll get answers if you keep looking at it. The trick is to let go of the idea that 'fundamental building blocks' of nature are a meaningful concept (we are tricked into the belief be our perceptual/epistemological goals) ... cheers, colin hales Mohsen Ravanbakhsh wrote: I'm thinking there's some kind of similarity between string theory and depicting the world as a big CA. In String theory we have some vibrating strings which have some kind of influence on each other and can for different matters and fields. CA can play such role of changing patterns and of course the influence is evident. Different rules in CA might correspond to various basic shapes of vibration in strings... I don't know much about S.T. but the idea of such mapping seems very interesting. -- Mohsen Ravanbakhsh. -- Mohsen Ravanbakhsh, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran.
Re: String theory and Cellular Automata
Mohsen Ravanbakhsh wrote: Hi, It was an interesting hypothesis, When we're talking black holes we should consider them as the sources of reduction of entropy; since when something gets into a black hole we have no more information about it and so the overall information of the world decreases and the same happens to entropy. In your the world is moving toward black holes so the entropy of the world should decrease! But that seems not to be the the case, it's somehow inconvenient. It's also wrong, according to our best theory of BHs, the entropy of a BH is proportional to it's surface area and the maximum entropy configuration of a given mass is for it to form a BH. The information interpretation of this is that the information that seems to be lost by something falling into a black hole is encoded in correlations between what falls in and the black-body Hawking radiation from the surface. So the entropy increases in that microscopically encoded information becomes unavailable to use macroscopic beings. This is where all entropy comes from anyway - the dynamical evolution of QM is deterministic (at least in the MWI) and so information is never lost or gained. Brent Meeker If we accept the idea of CA as the fundamental building blocks of the nature we should explain: why some patterns and not the others. Some that have lead to our physical laws and not the other possibilities? In this situation the idea of multiverse might help. On 3/15/07, *Colin Hales* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, See previous posts here re EC - Entropy Calculus. This caught my eye, thought I'd throw in my $0.02 worth. I have been working on this idea for a long while now. Am writing it up as part of my PhD process. The EC is a lambda calculus formalism that depicts reality. It's actual instantation with one particular and unbelievable massive axiom set is the universe we are in. The instantation is literally the CA of the EC primitives. As cognitive agents within it, made of the EC-CA, describing it, we can use abstracted simplified EC on a computational substrate (also made of the CA...a computer!) to explore/describe the universe. But the abstractions (like string theory) are not the universe - they are merely depictions at a certain spatiotemporal observer-scales. Reality is a literal ongoing massively parallel theorem proving exercise in Entropy Calculus. The EC universe has literally computed you and me and my dogs. Coherence/Bifurcation points in the CA correspond to new descriptive 'levels of underlying reality' - emergence. Atoms, Molecules, Crystalsetc... One of the descriptive abstractions of the EC-CA is called 'Maxwells-Equations'. Another is the Navier-Stokes equations (different context), another is Quantum Mechanics, the standard particle model and so on. None of them are reality - merely depictions of a surface behaviour of it. In the model there is only one universe and only one justified or needed. Which is a bummer if you insist on talking about multiverses.they are not parsimonious or necessary to explain the universe. I can't help it if they are unnecessary! You know , it's funny what EC makes the universe look like. the boundary of the universe is the collective event horizon of all black holes. On the other side is nothing. The endlessly increasing size of black holes is what corresponds to the endlessly increasing entropy (disorder - which is the dispersal of the deep universe back to nothing at the event horizons). The measure of the surface area of the black holes is the entropy of the whole universe. The process of dispersal at the boundary makes it look like the universe is expanding - to us from the inside. The reality is actually the reverse - the spatiotemporal circumstances are of shrinkage - due to the loss of the redundant fabric of the very deepest layers of reality being eaten by the black holes, dragging it inwhilst the organisation of collections of it at the uppermost layers is maintained (like space, atoms etc). (Imagine a jumper knitted of wool with a huge number of threads in the yarn - remove the redundant threads from the inside and the jumper shrinks, but is still a jumper, just getting smaller(everything else around looks like it's getting bigger from the point of view of being the jumper.) our future?...we'll all blink out of existence as the event horizons of black holes that grow and grow and grow and do it faster and faster and faster until. merging and merging until they all merge and then PFT! NOTHING. and the whole process starts again with a new
String theory and Cellular Automata
I'm thinking there's some kind of similarity between string theory and depicting the world as a big CA. In String theory we have some vibrating strings which have some kind of influence on each other and can for different matters and fields. CA can play such role of changing patterns and of course the influence is evident. Different rules in CA might correspond to various basic shapes of vibration in strings... I don't know much about S.T. but the idea of such mapping seems very interesting. -- Mohsen Ravanbakhsh. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: String theory and Cellular Automata
Mohsen Ravanbakhsh wrote: I'm thinking there's some kind of similarity between string theory and depicting the world as a big CA. In String theory we have some vibrating strings which have some kind of influence on each other and can for different matters and fields. CA can play such role of changing patterns and of course the influence is evident. Different rules in CA might correspond to various basic shapes of vibration in strings... I don't know much about S.T. but the idea of such mapping seems very interesting. -- Mohsen Ravanbakhsh. String theory assumes a manifold as background space. Loop quantum gravity is closer to a CA since it doesn't assume any continuum. Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: String theory and Cellular Automata
Hi, See previous posts here re EC - Entropy Calculus. This caught my eye, thought I'd throw in my $0.02 worth. I have been working on this idea for a long while now. Am writing it up as part of my PhD process. The EC is a lambda calculus formalism that depicts reality. It's actual instantation with one particular and unbelievable massive axiom set is the universe we are in. The instantation is literally the CA of the EC primitives. As cognitive agents within it, made of the EC-CA, describing it, we can use abstracted simplified EC on a computational substrate (also made of the CA...a computer!) to explore/describe the universe. But the abstractions (like string theory) are not the universe - they are merely depictions at a certain spatiotemporal observer-scales. Reality is a literal ongoing massively parallel theorem proving exercise in Entropy Calculus. The EC universe has literally computed you and me and my dogs. Coherence/Bifurcation points in the CA correspond to new descriptive 'levels of underlying reality' - emergence. Atoms, Molecules, Crystalsetc... One of the descriptive abstractions of the EC-CA is called 'Maxwells-Equations'. Another is the Navier-Stokes equations (different context), another is Quantum Mechanics, the standard particle model and so on. None of them are reality - merely depictions of a surface behaviour of it. In the model there is only one universe and only one justified or needed. Which is a bummer if you insist on talking about multiverses.they are not parsimonious or necessary to explain the universe. I can't help it if they are unnecessary! You know , it's funny what EC makes the universe look like. the boundary of the universe is the collective event horizon of all black holes. On the other side is nothing. The endlessly increasing size of black holes is what corresponds to the endlessly increasing entropy (disorder - which is the dispersal of the deep universe back to nothing at the event horizons). The measure of the surface area of the black holes is the entropy of the whole universe. The process of dispersal at the boundary makes it look like the universe is expanding - to us from the inside. The reality is actually the reverse - the spatiotemporal circumstances are of shrinkage - due to the loss of the redundant fabric of the very deepest layers of reality being eaten by the black holes, dragging it inwhilst the organisation of collections of it at the uppermost layers is maintained (like space, atoms etc). (Imagine a jumper knitted of wool with a huge number of threads in the yarn - remove the redundant threads from the inside and the jumper shrinks, but is still a jumper, just getting smaller(everything else around looks like it's getting bigger from the point of view of being the jumper.) our future?...we'll all blink out of existence as the event horizons of black holes that grow and grow and grow and do it faster and faster and faster until. merging and merging until they all merge and then PFT! NOTHING. and the whole process starts again with a new axiom setround and round and roundwe go... Weird huh? So I reckon you're on the right track. You don't have to believe me about any of it... but I can guarantee you'll get answers if you keep looking at it. The trick is to let go of the idea that 'fundamental building blocks' of nature are a meaningful concept (we are tricked into the belief be our perceptual/epistemological goals) ... cheers, colin hales Mohsen Ravanbakhsh wrote: I'm thinking there's some kind of similarity between string theory and depicting the world as a big CA. In String theory we have some vibrating strings which have some kind of influence on each other and can for different matters and fields. CA can play such role of changing patterns and of course the influence is evident. Different rules in CA might correspond to various basic shapes of vibration in strings... I don't know much about S.T. but the idea of such mapping seems very interesting. -- Mohsen Ravanbakhsh. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: String theory and Cellular Automata
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 10:57:57AM +1100, Colin Hales wrote: The EC is a lambda calculus formalism that depicts reality. It's actual instantation with one particular and unbelievable massive axiom set is the universe we are in. The instantation is literally the CA of the EC primitives. ... Which is a bummer if you insist on talking about multiverses.they are not parsimonious or necessary to explain the universe. I can't help it if they are unnecessary! Multiverse do not need massive axiom sets, which is their main advantage. You could argue that either a multiverse, or a massive axiom set is necessary. You pays your money and takes your choice. Cheers. -- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australiahttp://www.hpcoders.com.au --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
