I have been working the past two years trying to understand how would be possible to create a simulation of the universe and a lot of what Lee Smolin says resonates with some of the conclusion that I have got at the moment for example, he says that the wave function describes an ensemble of possible states of a system, example an electron, and this is equal for all the other electrons of the universe, I will more spe…
How to Understand the Universe When You’re Stuck Inside of It
41–50 of 66 posts
Re: How to Understand the Universe When You’re Stuck Inside of It
#42I have been working the past two years trying to understand how would be possible to create a simulation of the universe and a lot of what Lee Smolin says resonates with some of the conclusion that I have got at the moment for example, he says that the wave function describes an ensemble of possible states of a system, example an electron, and this is equal for all the other electrons of the universe, I will more spe…
I understand you have likely been looking into this for a while, but do you have any citations for any of this material? There are quite a few claims in here that need to be parsed out.
Re: How to Understand the Universe When You’re Stuck Inside of It
#43Some of it you can only understand from inside the universe. It would be difficult at best to guess at the Born rule from a simulation.
And why would you need a way to calculate the bias on observing a system from the inside out if your observations lack that bias?
Re: How to Understand the Universe When You’re Stuck Inside of It
#44All matter is information, all information is functional, and perception is therefore the lazy evaluation of the universe.
While this sounds profound, I'm unable to figure out what it actually means. Can you explain more?
Imagine that eat a banana. The contents of your stomach change. You have assumed a new identity. If you grasp/accept this, you are perceiving yourself as having mutated after eating the banana, because you are in temporal lockstep with your stomach. Most of what we consider to be "fact" and "how the world works" is a matter of perception. But I don't mean that in some hippy dippy way. I mean it in the Cartesian sense, roughly speaking, but at the mechanical level not the cognitive level, partly because I don't want to get trapped in the Cartesian circle but mostly because my idea of perception is any matter whose input function is the state of all other matter, conscious or otherwise, and thereby that the arrow of time arises from an evaluative process.
If I had a spare lifetime I'd probably want to pursue this at postgraduate level at some reputable philosophy department, if there is one. But essentially the thesis is that state is coterminous with identity, and mutation of state therefore creates a new entity, and my interest is in the fundamental processes behind that.
Hence the suggestion: we are all value objects, all matter is information, all information is functional, and perception is therefore the lazy evaluation of the universe.
Note: this is especially important when you are the banana.
Re: How to Understand the Universe When You’re Stuck Inside of It
#45All matter is information, all information is functional, and perception is therefore the lazy evaluation of the universe.
Does the universe require perception in order for there to be existence? If so, does the perception require consciousness? Is consciousness constrained to the universe, or orthogonal to it?
When it comes to the question of whether consciousness is orthogonal to existence. I'm inclined to the position that it's an emergent property of matter, in particular taking exception to human exceptionalism. I acknowledge this is sailing damn close to the Chinese Room argument.
Re: How to Understand the Universe When You’re Stuck Inside of It
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Does the universe require perception in order for there to be existence? If you use big bang theory, the universe existed prior to observers perceiving it. So there was existence and no perception. Perception appears to have evolved out of existence. The story of the big bang is sort of neat. It looks like many fundamental particles didn't exist until the time was right for them to come into being.
> If you use big bang theory, the universe existed prior to observers perceiving it. That would depend on the definition of perception. Does a nail perceive being struck by the hammer? To say otherwise would presume that humanity's form awareness is somehow special, and not simply a more complicated interaction between ourselves and the universe than is the nail's with the hammer.
You have, er, nailed it
Re: How to Understand the Universe When You’re Stuck Inside of It
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
While this sounds profound, I'm unable to figure out what it actually means. Can you explain more?
Your comment reminded me of Reggie Watts’ TED talk where he impersonates an intellectual TED talk by stringing together random big words in a British accent. https://youtu.be/BdHK_r9RXTc?t=55
but I don't have his hair
Re: How to Understand the Universe When You’re Stuck Inside of It
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, all you need is to observe things. Be it a simple detector or conscious observer, you've extracted information from the environment. The observation implies existence, what observed it is inconsequential.
So is entropy really about energy, or information? Or is there any difference.
Imagine any given configuration of the universe. Of all possible changes to a new configuration (think Levenshtein distance) from that configuration there’s a large set of “equivalent” (in the aggregate) configurations, let’s call those the future. There is a smaller set of configurations which we would ascribe some special character too, such as being somewhat orderly let’s call those the past. the set of possible configurations encoding a broken pot are larger then the set encodings an unbroken one. But the state brokenness of the pot is entirely a subjective things, without that interpretation of the encoding they are equally random
Now if you are a “process”, a kind of pattern that can be identified as the same entity in several of those configurations, it would seem necessary for that pattern to follow some rule in which most of those “future” configurations would retain its unique characteristic.
So if you throw a dart into this mess of configurations and hit such an entity, selecting any direction to move from that point at random would most likely give you a configuration with higher entropy, but in which this particular pattern would be retained.
Some patterns would have a higher chance than other of being traceable along those changes, perhaps they encode a kind of anticipation of likely futures yielding a rules set which a higher likelihood of existing from one configuration to the next. Let’s call this patterns “living”
Re: How to Understand the Universe When You’re Stuck Inside of It
#49> This relational framework captured Smolin’s imagination, as did Leibniz’s enigmatic text The Monadology, in which Leibniz suggests that the world’s fundamental ingredient is the “monad,” If this is not evidence that Haskell is the language of the Gods, I don't know what is...
Monads were used in APL language long before Haskell came to be. Surely all those are different monads though.