I guess the question is whether the universe expands or contracts more rapidly in our universe as opposed to some other one?
You'll have to ask someone familiar with simulated universes. I only know a little about how the real universe (base reality???) works. But I guess any expansion or contraction would depend on the specific simulation program, and initial conditions, which are both forms of Information. What prompted such a question?
PS__I have an information-based theory of state transformations (novel state spaces) in the real world. But it's probably not detailed enough for your needs.
PS__I have an information-based theory of state transformations (novel state spaces) in the real world. But it's probably not detailed enough for your needs.
PS__I have an information-based theory of state transformations (novel state spaces) in the real world. But it's probably not technical enough for your needs. — Gnomon
Please share that too.
Here's a link to the EnFormAction Hypothesis. The popup in Note 2 gives more details on Emergence, Phase Transitions and Quantum Leaps. But the essay is not supported with mathematical calculations. It's just a metaphorical myth, to illustrate my Information-based worldview.
The EnFormAction Hypothesis : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html
In a non-deterministic universe that would all be true. But, this isn't a non-deterministic universe, is it?
It's both. I view the universe metaphorically as a computer program processing Information. The mechanics of the process is predetermined, but the output is open to serendipity (random chance). Hence, there is FreeWill within Determinism. The end-state is not pre-determined.
Evolutionary Programming : Special computer algorithms inspired by biological Natural Selection. It is similar to Genetic Programming in that it relies on internal competition between random alternative solutions to weed-out inferior results, and to pass-on superior answers to the next generation of algorithms. By means of such optimizing feedback loops, evolution is able to make progress toward the best possible solution – limited only by local restraints – to the original programmer’s goal or purpose. In Enformationism theory the Prime Programmer is portrayed as a creative deity, who uses bottom-up mechanisms, rather than top-down miracles, to produce a world with both freedom & determinism, order & meaning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_programming
"the structure of the program to be optimized is fixed, while its numerical parameters are allowed to evolve."
The programmer defines the parameters for success, but not the final form. The program gradually evolves an optimized form to meet the designer's requirements. The heuristic trial & error path from start to finish is erratic, and similar to Hegel's Dialectic. It is deterministic in its teleological goal, but allows freedom to try novel forms, and then to test them for conformance to standards, those that are better than the previous phase are allowed to reproduce in the next phase. In evolution, that's called Mutation and Natural Selection.
Well, the question is pretty straightforward. If the universe is expanding, then new state spaces are arising and hence information.
I guess the question is whether the universe expands or contracts more rapidly in our universe as opposed to some other one?
Carlo Rovelli says this about QM in relation to Information Theory, which I think is relevant:
“A physical system manifests itself only by interacting with another. The description of a physical system, then, is always given in relation to another physical system, the one with which it interacts. Any description of a system is therefore always a description of the information which a system has about another system, that is to say the correlation between the two systems.”
“1. The relevant information in any physical system is finite.
2. You can always obtain new information on a physical system.”
So the expansion/contraction of the universe is always relative to the position of observer/measurement apparatus. I think your question may be akin to ‘how long is a piece of string?’, but I could also be misunderstanding you.
The programmer defines the parameters for success, but not the final form. The program gradually evolves an optimized form to meet the designer's requirements. The heuristic trial & error path from start to finish is erratic, and similar to Hegel's Dialectic. It is deterministic in its teleological goal, but allows freedom to try novel forms, and then to test them for conformance to standards, those that are better than the previous phase are allowed to reproduce in the next phase. In evolution, that's called Mutation and Natural Selection.
No, this process is non-linear, and hence, at any moment the wavefunction may collapse and differentiate realities from (again) non-linear ones.
Or in other words, the best of all possible worlds would be a twig on the branch of the tree. The self-guided rational goal must include the possibility of wavefunction collapse and a static (best) wavefunction non-collapse.
(Intelligent design and the fact of simulated realities, overlap)
“A physical system manifests itself only by interacting with another. The description of a physical system, then, is always given in relation to another physical system, the one with which it interacts. Any description of a system is therefore always a description of the information which a system has about another system, that is to say the correlation between the two systems.”
So, then are there just two branches needed in sum total of possible world's?
PossibilityJanuary 27, 2020 at 09:04#3760690 likes
So, then are there just two branches needed in sum total of possible world's?
No - technically, there are two possible branches for each relational distinction. It depends on the relative (non-spatial) ‘potential distance’ (in respect of R) between possible worlds: the degree to which the two worlds potentially differ with respect to R.
Most theories collapse the distinction between possible and potential by assuming that ALL possible worlds have sufficient potentiality to manifest in relation to our actual world, but it should be obvious that this isn’t accurate. Potentiality is the relative distinction between two possible worlds, while actuality is the relative distinction between two of these potentialities. So it’s a little more complicated...
No, this process is non-linear, and hence, at any moment the wavefunction may collapse and differentiate realities from (again) non-linear ones.
You are talking about a sub-process, perhaps with feedback loops. I'm talking about the whole process, which has a beginning and end. I'm talking about a complete Program, not a sub-routine.
Or in other words, the best of all possible worlds would be a twig on the branch of the tree.
Are you talking about multiverses? I prefer to discuss the only world we know. In Infinity & Eternity all things are possible, including : "collapse" and "non-collapse". But that negation gets us nowhere.
Think of a solipsist arising within a simulated world.
If, then, what?
I don't know, What?
What does this have to do with my world?
I'm afraid the only solipsist I know anything about is me : imagining my own little world. The only other worlds I'm aware of are those in the minds of my fellow solipsists, whose realities seem to be approximate simulations of my personal reality. Are we creating our personal realities by observations of quantum fluctuations within the very worlds we are imagining? Does that mean 7 billion realities are being created by quantum collapse, every second of every day, around the world that I alone am dreaming?
Obviously, if we each create our private worlds, the infinite possibilities are mind boggling. That's why I prefer to assume that my reality is the only reality, and everyone else needs to get on board. They can do that by accepting the "facts" revealed by the imaginary scientists within my world as the sole truth.
Otherwise, we will have to just compare our subjective personal worldviews via philosophical dialogue, and construct a collective composite worldview (common sense) from the parts that are generally in agreement. That's what you might call "Conventional Reality". And no need to worry about collapsing quantums. It's all imaginary anyway. :cool:
The Case Against Reality : http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html
The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality, Quanta Magazine : https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality-20160421/
Well, the question is pretty straightforward. If the universe is expanding, then new state spaces are arising and hence information.
An infinite universe expanded say 10% does not require more state spaces any more than a busload of new guests requires expansion of Hilbert's hotel.
Also, I have personal doubts about there being a specific state for any particular location, but there are interpretations of the universe that posit it, so I cannot say it is wrong.
Think of a solipsist arising within a simulated world.
That's different. As the visible universe expands, it seems that matter exits it over time, leaving less to simulate. More space for a while, but eventually even that begins to collapse as the event horizon encroaches.
I'm afraid the only solipsist I know anything about is me : imagining my own little world. The only other worlds I'm aware of are those in the minds of my fellow solipsists, whose realities seem to be approximate simulations of my personal reality. Are we creating our personal realities by observations of quantum fluctuations within the very worlds we are imagining? Does that mean 7 billion realities are being created by quantum collapse, every second of every day, around the world that I alone am dreaming?
Well, that seems inconceivable if no consensus can be attained, and that seems even harder to assess than had 7 billion people living in their own worlds!
Well, that seems inconceivable if no consensus can be attained, and that seems even harder to assess than had 7 billion people living in their own worlds!
I was just teasing you. Modern Science is the best consensus opinion of reality that humans have invented so far. But scientists are far from a quorum on fringe topics like Information Theory and Simulated Realities. I have expressed my informed opinion. And you have had your say. But neither of us has the last word. Science evolves. :smile:
PS__Some of us have too much time on our hands for discussing such abstruse topics as Simulated Realities and Imaginary Worlds. I'm retired. What's your excuse? :cool:
I was just teasing you. Modern Science is the best consensus opinion of reality that humans have invented so far. But scientists are far from a quorum on fringe topics like Information Theory and Simulated Realities. I have expressed my informed opinion. And you have had your say. But neither of us has the last word. Science evolves. :smile:
But, think about this... can a solipsist recreate the world in a more perfect form? This verges on my other topic about intelligent design and solipsism...
But, think about this... can a solipsist recreate the world in a more perfect form? This verges on my other topic about intelligent design and solipsism...
PS__Some of us have too much time on our hands for discussing such abstruse topics as Simulated Realities and Imaginary Worlds. I'm retired. What's your excuse? :cool:
An infinite universe expanded say 10% does not require more state spaces any more than a busload of new guests requires expansion of Hilbert's hotel.
— noAxioms
I think it more as an issue of countably infinite alphabets versus uncountably infinite alphabets as an analogy.
It goes from countable to uncountable when growing 10%?
If not, what do you mean by that reply?
The universe is not the sort of thing that can be run on any computer as we know them, even given infinite resources. Approximated, sure, but even then only a subset of it. So the thing doing the simulating is not anything to which we can really relate.
As for being a deterministic universe, that all depends on your quantum interpretation of choice, but most of them are actually pretty deterministic with no fundamental randomness.
Continuously expanding or not, I can conceivably count the electrons in it, so it seems countably infinite, no?
As for the solipsist thing to which you seem to be leaning, the universe need not be simulated at all, only your experience of it, which is within the capability of the sort of machine we can envision.
Continuously expanding or not, I can count the electrons in it, so it seems countably infinite, no?
Are you also considering the multitude of multiverses also? Yeah, I know, uncountable or countable? Seems to me that determinism is inescapable either way.
As for the solipsist thing to which you seem to be leaning, the universe need not be simulated at all, only your experience of it, which is within the capability of the sort of machine we can envision.
No, not really. Any solipsistic universe can be (potentially) uncountably infinite, as per the pre-existing universe from where the solipsist derives their solipsism.
You talking about the scale of the container universe simulating this one? The properties of that are completely undefined, so I can offer no opinion.
That's true; but, we can measure models and traits of the original universe through measurement and observation of this one, yes? Kinda, Plato's cave or Kantian noumenal.
You're saying the original universe is simulating the experience of something with the same rules as itself. How might you know that?
Hmmm, it seems to me that to emulate the ancestor universe would be pointless, so I don't think there are hidden variables at play in any particular sub-universe. It would require one to continuously rewrite the code of the current universe to be able to simulate it with new rules. Not impossible though.
Comments (34)
Well, the question is pretty straightforward. If the universe is expanding, then new state spaces are arising and hence information.
I guess the question is whether the universe expands or contracts more rapidly in our universe as opposed to some other one?
You'll have to ask someone familiar with simulated universes. I only know a little about how the real universe (base reality???) works. But I guess any expansion or contraction would depend on the specific simulation program, and initial conditions, which are both forms of Information. What prompted such a question?
PS__I have an information-based theory of state transformations (novel state spaces) in the real world. But it's probably not detailed enough for your needs.
I'll send you a PM.
Please share that too.
Here's a link to the EnFormAction Hypothesis. The popup in Note 2 gives more details on Emergence, Phase Transitions and Quantum Leaps. But the essay is not supported with mathematical calculations. It's just a metaphorical myth, to illustrate my Information-based worldview.
The EnFormAction Hypothesis : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html
In a non-deterministic universe that would all be true. But, this isn't a non-deterministic universe, is it?
It's both. I view the universe metaphorically as a computer program processing Information. The mechanics of the process is predetermined, but the output is open to serendipity (random chance). Hence, there is FreeWill within Determinism. The end-state is not pre-determined.
Evolutionary Programming :
Special computer algorithms inspired by biological Natural Selection. It is similar to Genetic Programming in that it relies on internal competition between random alternative solutions to weed-out inferior results, and to pass-on superior answers to the next generation of algorithms. By means of such optimizing feedback loops, evolution is able to make progress toward the best possible solution – limited only by local restraints – to the original programmer’s goal or purpose. In Enformationism theory the Prime Programmer is portrayed as a creative deity, who uses bottom-up mechanisms, rather than top-down miracles, to produce a world with both freedom & determinism, order & meaning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_programming
"the structure of the program to be optimized is fixed, while its numerical parameters are allowed to evolve."
And what would it take for that to be true?
The programmer defines the parameters for success, but not the final form. The program gradually evolves an optimized form to meet the designer's requirements. The heuristic trial & error path from start to finish is erratic, and similar to Hegel's Dialectic. It is deterministic in its teleological goal, but allows freedom to try novel forms, and then to test them for conformance to standards, those that are better than the previous phase are allowed to reproduce in the next phase. In evolution, that's called Mutation and Natural Selection.
Quoting Wallows
No. Who dat?
Carlo Rovelli says this about QM in relation to Information Theory, which I think is relevant:
“A physical system manifests itself only by interacting with another. The description of a physical system, then, is always given in relation to another physical system, the one with which it interacts. Any description of a system is therefore always a description of the information which a system has about another system, that is to say the correlation between the two systems.”
“1. The relevant information in any physical system is finite.
2. You can always obtain new information on a physical system.”
So the expansion/contraction of the universe is always relative to the position of observer/measurement apparatus. I think your question may be akin to ‘how long is a piece of string?’, but I could also be misunderstanding you.
No, this process is non-linear, and hence, at any moment the wavefunction may collapse and differentiate realities from (again) non-linear ones.
Or in other words, the best of all possible worlds would be a twig on the branch of the tree. The self-guided rational goal must include the possibility of wavefunction collapse and a static (best) wavefunction non-collapse.
(Intelligent design and the fact of simulated realities, overlap)
So, then are there just two branches needed in sum total of possible world's?
No - technically, there are two possible branches for each relational distinction. It depends on the relative (non-spatial) ‘potential distance’ (in respect of R) between possible worlds: the degree to which the two worlds potentially differ with respect to R.
Most theories collapse the distinction between possible and potential by assuming that ALL possible worlds have sufficient potentiality to manifest in relation to our actual world, but it should be obvious that this isn’t accurate. Potentiality is the relative distinction between two possible worlds, while actuality is the relative distinction between two of these potentialities. So it’s a little more complicated...
You are talking about a sub-process, perhaps with feedback loops. I'm talking about the whole process, which has a beginning and end. I'm talking about a complete Program, not a sub-routine.
Quoting Wallows
Are you talking about multiverses? I prefer to discuss the only world we know. In Infinity & Eternity all things are possible, including : "collapse" and "non-collapse". But that negation gets us nowhere.
Quoting Wallows
I don't follow. :smile:
Think of a solipsist arising within a simulated world.
If, then, what?
I don't know, What?
What does this have to do with my world?
I'm afraid the only solipsist I know anything about is me : imagining my own little world. The only other worlds I'm aware of are those in the minds of my fellow solipsists, whose realities seem to be approximate simulations of my personal reality. Are we creating our personal realities by observations of quantum fluctuations within the very worlds we are imagining? Does that mean 7 billion realities are being created by quantum collapse, every second of every day, around the world that I alone am dreaming?
Obviously, if we each create our private worlds, the infinite possibilities are mind boggling. That's why I prefer to assume that my reality is the only reality, and everyone else needs to get on board. They can do that by accepting the "facts" revealed by the imaginary scientists within my world as the sole truth.
Otherwise, we will have to just compare our subjective personal worldviews via philosophical dialogue, and construct a collective composite worldview (common sense) from the parts that are generally in agreement. That's what you might call "Conventional Reality". And no need to worry about collapsing quantums. It's all imaginary anyway. :cool:
The Case Against Reality : http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html
The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality, Quanta Magazine : https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality-20160421/
An infinite universe expanded say 10% does not require more state spaces any more than a busload of new guests requires expansion of Hilbert's hotel.
Also, I have personal doubts about there being a specific state for any particular location, but there are interpretations of the universe that posit it, so I cannot say it is wrong.
Quoting Wallows
That's different. As the visible universe expands, it seems that matter exits it over time, leaving less to simulate. More space for a while, but eventually even that begins to collapse as the event horizon encroaches.
Well, that seems inconceivable if no consensus can be attained, and that seems even harder to assess than had 7 billion people living in their own worlds!
I think it more as an issue of countably infinite alphabets versus uncountably infinite alphabets as an analogy.
I was just teasing you. Modern Science is the best consensus opinion of reality that humans have invented so far. But scientists are far from a quorum on fringe topics like Information Theory and Simulated Realities. I have expressed my informed opinion. And you have had your say. But neither of us has the last word. Science evolves. :smile:
PS__Some of us have too much time on our hands for discussing such abstruse topics as Simulated Realities and Imaginary Worlds. I'm retired. What's your excuse? :cool:
But, think about this... can a solipsist recreate the world in a more perfect form? This verges on my other topic about intelligent design and solipsism...
Quoting Gnomon
Over & out.
You read that PDF I sent you?
It seems to point towards panpsychism.
It goes from countable to uncountable when growing 10%?
If not, what do you mean by that reply?
The universe is not the sort of thing that can be run on any computer as we know them, even given infinite resources. Approximated, sure, but even then only a subset of it. So the thing doing the simulating is not anything to which we can really relate.
As for being a deterministic universe, that all depends on your quantum interpretation of choice, but most of them are actually pretty deterministic with no fundamental randomness.
I meant that it is either uncountably infinite or continuously expanding.
As for the solipsist thing to which you seem to be leaning, the universe need not be simulated at all, only your experience of it, which is within the capability of the sort of machine we can envision.
Are you also considering the multitude of multiverses also? Yeah, I know, uncountable or countable? Seems to me that determinism is inescapable either way.
Quoting noAxioms
No, not really. Any solipsistic universe can be (potentially) uncountably infinite, as per the pre-existing universe from where the solipsist derives their solipsism.
You talking about the scale of the container universe simulating this one? The properties of that are completely undefined, so I can offer no opinion.
To a solipsist, the only universe that exists is one in which their self is the same with the world. Does that make more sense?
Quoting noAxioms
That's true; but, we can measure models and traits of the original universe through measurement and observation of this one, yes? Kinda, Plato's cave or Kantian noumenal.
You're saying the original universe is simulating the experience of something with the same rules as itself. How might you know that?
Dreams are just an example here if it's really that hard to comprehend.
Quoting noAxioms
Hmmm, it seems to me that to emulate the ancestor universe would be pointless, so I don't think there are hidden variables at play in any particular sub-universe. It would require one to continuously rewrite the code of the current universe to be able to simulate it with new rules. Not impossible though.