31–40 of 203 posts
> It is not a phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon. It’s more palatable when we consider not the observation, but the information that was collapsed out of the superimposed states at the time of the observation. The universe uses lazy evaluation, and things only happen when they have effects on other things, and what we see as past depends on what we observe now, as both need to be consistent with each other…
> The universe uses lazy evaluation Brilliant.
The really tough problems require minds that are wired differently and John Wheeler's mind was definitely a thing apart. Its the sort of unique mental fingerprint or aesthetic that characterizes great talents in this space (Feynman and Penrose are other examples of this trait, imho). Compare Gravitation (the bible) and its boldness, inventiveness and playfulness with the sterile presentation of most theoretical physi…
Total pedantipoint but the book's title is Gravitation of which he was one of three authors.
On the blackboard he and his students wrote "Godel's Proof -- too important to be left to the mathematicians." As a mathematician, I'd love if anyone here knew the context
So if Wheeler is saying the universe comes out of quantum observation, then the connection seems to be a self-referential Strange Loop of consciousness/observation/participation along the lines of "we're just the universe observing itself"
“Hope produces space and time?” The longer I live the more I appreciate Kurt Gödel’s proof that we can never know everything about the universe. https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-godels-proof-works-202007...
You’d need something bigger than the universe to represent everything in the universe.
> It is not a phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon. It’s more palatable when we consider not the observation, but the information that was collapsed out of the superimposed states at the time of the observation. The universe uses lazy evaluation, and things only happen when they have effects on other things, and what we see as past depends on what we observe now, as both need to be consistent with each other…
If I'm not mistaken some gaming physics engines work this way too, am I mistaken? Something akin to avoiding calculating the details of a voxel until it is observed by the gamer?
On the blackboard he and his students wrote "Godel's Proof -- too important to be left to the mathematicians." As a mathematician, I'd love if anyone here knew the context
So why leave it solely to the mathematicians.
[0] https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-godels-proof-works-202007...
Quanta is such a great resource! High value spend from Jim Simons vast pool of dollars. I came across MTW’s “Gravitation” as a student in the 70’s and it inspired a positively unreasonable desire to own a copy just because it looked so beautiful. Couldn’t afford the doorstop of a book at that time but happily it is still in print 50 years later.
They are good at framing advanced science as intuitive and engaging stories, context is always appreciated. Although, frankly, whenever I see the Quanta URL I tend to skip straight to the comments. It's too verbose to my taste, I just want to understand what the discovery is about, get an understanding of the substantive details without too much prerequisite knowledge, and understand the impact on other research and…
Exactly because of the more literary prose that I know I will enjoy but need the time to appreciate. Also, I don't think I've ever had to spend more than 10 minutes to read one of their articles, it's time well spent, or maybe I'm just nostalgic for longer-form magazines that I miss from my younger years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not if compression is involved.
This is why I have a totally unhinged belief that it might be possible to emulate the universe inside the universe itself.
If the emulation is contained inside the universe being emulated, do you think the emulated universe includes the emulation contained within it? Does the emulation now contain another emulation? If so, now many emulations?