John Wheeler saw the tear in reality • Hacker News Board

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#41

Post by inopinatus » Wed, Oct 02, 2024, 9:16 PM UTC

ricksunny wrote: post #26

rbanffy wrote: post #9

> 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?

Not quite like voxels, because that implies some higher existence defining a grid. Avoiding that requires a more local definition of existence in terms of adjacency.

I’ve always encoded it thus:

“All matter is information, all information is functional, and perception is therefore the lazy evaluation of the universe.”

In the Greg Egan edition of this thesis, the speed of light emerges as a property of evaluative propagation through a functional universe, and new forms of consciousness are encountered living within the algebraic structure of the cosmos.

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#42

Post by xpl » Wed, Oct 02, 2024, 9:16 PM UTC

yreg wrote: post #17

rbanffy wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’d need something bigger than the universe to represent everything in the universe.

Is that necessarily true for all universes? I suppose an empty universe represents itself. Or you could have a universe with matter distributed in the shape of https://xkcd.com/688/

Can there be an empty universe? I suppose there is no "self" to represent then.

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#43

Post by TuringTourist » Wed, Oct 02, 2024, 9:22 PM UTC

joseph_b wrote: post #40

qingcharles wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why I have a totally unhinged belief that it might be possible to emulate the universe inside the universe itself.

Everything sounds so simple until we try to explain it. 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?

And if that is the case, the odds are basically 0 that we happen to be the first of an infinite number of universes emulating themselves

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#44

Post by defgeneric » Wed, Oct 02, 2024, 9:25 PM UTC

its_bbq wrote: post #22

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

I don't know the context, but Claus Kiefer was on the Physics Frontiers podcast recently talking about this paper:

https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.07331

Gödel's undecidability theorems and the search for a theory of everything

"I investigate the question whether Gödel's undecidability theorems play a crucial role in the search for a unified theory of physics. I conclude that unless the structure of space-time is fundamentally discrete we can never decide whether a given theory is the final one or not. This is relevant for both canonical quantum gravity and string theory."

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#45

Post by Thrymr » Wed, Oct 02, 2024, 9:28 PM UTC

pvg wrote: post #33

openrisk wrote: post #24

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…

Compare Gravity Total pedantipoint but the book's title is Gravitation of which he was one of three authors.

> he was one of three authors

Indeed, but the other two (Charles Misner and Kip Thorne) were Wheeler's former students.

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#46

Post by ridgeguy » Wed, Oct 02, 2024, 9:30 PM UTC

joseph_b wrote: post #40

qingcharles wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why I have a totally unhinged belief that it might be possible to emulate the universe inside the universe itself.

Everything sounds so simple until we try to explain it. 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?

Pretty sure it's emulations all the way down.

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#47

Post by layer8 » Wed, Oct 02, 2024, 9:33 PM UTC

rbanffy wrote: post #9

> 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 observer being part of the universe suggests that the observer becomes entangled with the superimposed states as well by the observation, and that nothing collapses.

> The universe uses lazy evaluation […]

That’s only a sensible notion if you assume that time exists outside of the universe instead of being part of it. Wheeler’s idea of space-time being non-fundamental suggests the latter.

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#48

Post by ricksunny » Wed, Oct 02, 2024, 9:34 PM UTC

It's interesting we have such receptivity in the HN community here on physicist-proposed metaphysics (yay!), yet in an entirely similar light - an article covering physicist Roger Penrose's 'microtubules' on HN a couple days ago, we get the reflexive "but experts say this is bunk' treatment.

Personally I don't know from Sam on either hypothesis. I'm just wondering for all things seeming equal, when do we get receptivity from the HN community and when to anticipate the knives coming out? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41696559

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#49

Post by inopinatus » Wed, Oct 02, 2024, 9:39 PM UTC

layer8 wrote: post #47

rbanffy wrote: post #9

> 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 observer being part of the universe suggests that the observer becomes entangled with the superimposed states as well by the observation, and that nothing collapses. > The universe uses lazy evaluation […] That’s only a sensible notion if you assume that time exists outside of the universe instead of being part of it. Wheeler’s idea of space-time being non-fundamental suggests the latter.

This may be reconciled by defining the speed of light in terms of the latency of evaluation.

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#50

Post by rbanffy » Wed, Oct 02, 2024, 9:40 PM UTC

xpl wrote: post #42

yreg wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that necessarily true for all universes? I suppose an empty universe represents itself. Or you could have a universe with matter distributed in the shape of https://xkcd.com/688/

Can there be an empty universe? I suppose there is no "self" to represent then.

An empty universe would not have any information, or state change, and wouldn’t trigger any computation, therefore, it wouldn’t exist.