The Nature of the Universe, Time Travel and More...
- Thread starter Will The Serious
- Start date
Cool video by Neil Degrasse Tyson on warp drive
I don’t think I will live to see that.
One of my favorite YouTube hosts is no more…
hackaday.com
One of my favorite YouTube hosts is no more…
Honoring The Legacy Of Robert Murray-Smith
We at Hackaday are deeply saddened to learn of the passing of Robert Murray-Smith. The prolific experimenter had spent over a decade on YouTube, creating more than 2,500 videos where he gleefully d…
hackaday.com
i still wonder if a flux compasseder and 1 21 jiggawats is one of the way that will make time travel possible
Amazing that something like this made to make boom can also be used to help your heart. Ignore the title of the video it's a bit click baity but it's really interesting.
Yeah, I just became a new beneficiary of nitro, myself.
-Will
-Will
What would happen if everyone shone a laser onto the Moon?
Well not what you think
Well not what you think
It's exactly what I thought.
I got some chuckles. It's great that it's narrated by Randall Munroe himself, as per the credits. It's nice to hear him speak.
And, yeah, I was hoping he'd find a way to Space: 1999 the moon.
He did!
And, yeah, I was hoping he'd find a way to Space: 1999 the moon.
He did!
The Universe is Not a Simulation
This article claims that we have proven that we do not live in a computer simulation.
Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem is cited as one of the key premises for concluding that the Universe cannot be a simulation.
Like the linked article, let me just circle that argument around to repeat.
Because any algorithm would need to describe non-logical or algorithmic properties of the Universe, it has been demonstrated that there are non-algorithmic properties of the Universe, including the algorithm of the Universe itself. Therefore, no algorithm can describe the entire Universe, making it impossible for the Universe to be a computer simulation.
While I am very comfortable with the idea that our Universe is not a computer simulation, I don't believe either, that our universe can't be a simulation, or that the proof, as presented in this article, proves anything.
-Will
This article claims that we have proven that we do not live in a computer simulation.
Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem is cited as one of the key premises for concluding that the Universe cannot be a simulation.
Like the linked article, let me just circle that argument around to repeat.
Because any algorithm would need to describe non-logical or algorithmic properties of the Universe, it has been demonstrated that there are non-algorithmic properties of the Universe, including the algorithm of the Universe itself. Therefore, no algorithm can describe the entire Universe, making it impossible for the Universe to be a computer simulation.
While I am very comfortable with the idea that our Universe is not a computer simulation, I don't believe either, that our universe can't be a simulation, or that the proof, as presented in this article, proves anything.
-Will
You don't need to simulate the entire Universe - only all possible conscious states and that can be done for the human brain mass in a quantum computer with a number of qubits roughly equal to the number of atoms in the Moon.
Why does it matter?
Why do people care if the universe is real or simulation, it's not like you can change any of it?
Why do people care if the universe is real or simulation, it's not like you can change any of it?
We can't count to infinity, anyway, so I don't see how it has been demonstrated experimentally that the universe has any non-algorithmic behavior at all. When expressed in bytes, the entirety of our experimental data at any one time is finite in size. As far as we know, this will remain true at any time in the future.
So, under that premise, pick a time T in the future. In theory, infinitely many algorithms will describe all experimental data produced up to that time. After that time, when new data comes, in theory infinitely many algorithms will be rejected, those which when continued to produce further data don't match what's been observed. But in theory infinitely many algorithms will remain unrefuted, since at any time only finitely many bytes must be generated, always an initial segment of all experimental data that will ever be produced. That process will continue indefinitely. Theoretically at least, there will always be infinitely many algorithms that have not been proven experimentally not to describe the behavior of the universe.
So, under that premise, pick a time T in the future. In theory, infinitely many algorithms will describe all experimental data produced up to that time. After that time, when new data comes, in theory infinitely many algorithms will be rejected, those which when continued to produce further data don't match what's been observed. But in theory infinitely many algorithms will remain unrefuted, since at any time only finitely many bytes must be generated, always an initial segment of all experimental data that will ever be produced. That process will continue indefinitely. Theoretically at least, there will always be infinitely many algorithms that have not been proven experimentally not to describe the behavior of the universe.
Yes, I agree. The simulation doesn't even need to do much more than implant the feeling of an infinite, undefined Universe. Like the gaming fields on the screen of an XBox adventure game, the entire Universe doesn't need to be rendered, only the part that is seen on the screen plus the next, adjacent cached images anticipated renderings. But then, how did the computer simulation come to exist?
These kinds of ideas are just adding another turtle under the tower of turtles holding up the Universe, and obfuscate the real question about the origins and ultimate nature of the Universe.
Where resides the mind that is witness to the Universe, whatever its nature?
Both science and philosophy treat the witness as independent of the phenomena of the world. After all, the nature of the witness is really what all these questions are trying to answer.
-Will
These kinds of ideas are just adding another turtle under the tower of turtles holding up the Universe, and obfuscate the real question about the origins and ultimate nature of the Universe.
Where resides the mind that is witness to the Universe, whatever its nature?
Both science and philosophy treat the witness as independent of the phenomena of the world. After all, the nature of the witness is really what all these questions are trying to answer.
-Will
I was going to post this in the AI thread but I felt it fit here more but what if AI was actually more of a thing that just exists as some kind of nascent presence in the universe that influences some to create itself, or give it form?
The information required to perfectly describe a physical system is finite for a finite region of space that contains a finite amount of energy. The number of possible quantum states for a given quantity of mass-energy E in a given volume with radius R is limited by the Bekenstein Bound. The dimensionality of the Hilbert space (quantum state space) describing such a system is given by exp (2πRE/ħc), where ħ is the reduced Planck constant and c is the speed of light. This is the fundamental limit on what it is possible for a finite conscious being to experience. It's a huge number for the human brain, but it's not infinite.
Last edited:
The Multiverse instantiates all things that are possible as fluctuations away from non-existence.
Well we humans call it AI but maybe it's just there below the surface of the visible world influencing its physical creation
