Universal Computation

[Vkothii]

There are obviously not many cosmologists here. Or the people who profess to be studying something they call Wilson loops and string theories must be studying their navels collectively.

I have quoted at least one scientist in this forum, who says the universe computes.

But this phrase appears to be a step too far for our lint-collecting, sleepy, somewhat dazed but still motley crew of mods. Who wake up now and then to toss something or other in the trash.

UC implies that everything is doing something. Unfortunately the informational model and the implications of Shannon's information/communication theories, aren't going anywhere.

So, I absolutely am expecting an explanation from whoever tossed my last effort in the "probably bullshit" bin, to now explain why they thought it was so "funny".
Because I think they are going to get laughed at, when they explain why the opposite is true to everyone, that one goes: "the universe is not computing, nothing that is evolving anywhere in the universe can be called a computer or said to be communicating. This is pseudoscience".

Please do tell.

[Vkothii]

I get it, I'm dealing with a group of people who are a group of immature children.
Wouldn't know a theory if they fell into one.

TBH, over the last couple of months, I've been leaning towards the conclusion that you're all a waste of time pretty much.
Most of the questions I post just seem to confuse the hell out of the likes of Ben, who seems happy in his position as head librarian but doesn't seem to be able to read all that well.

I guess none of the so-called "scientists" here actually are anything more than one or two students who have a few idle moments to post a bit of drek or other.
I don't think anyone here is all that educated, there's bugger-all evidence. This place is just a refuge for various wannabes, who know a bit of math so that qualifies them as experts on pretty much everything.

You guys are lost, aren't you, you don't really know what you're doing do you?
Nothing's changed from the first time I mentioned the blindingly obvious fact that a photon of light is a channel.
It's a channel because it sends information - we use light to do this all the time, we've been using light for signaling for a long time. How is this even remotely possible, you think?

So that means, if light can convey messages, then that's what all the light from stars, the Milky-Way, anything at all that is 'radiating' into the universe is communicating.

What a bunch of goddam dweebs.

[Vkothii]

Of course. everyone who knows about string theory and cosmology knows that time is special.
How, up close time and distance appear to be quite different things - the positions of objects change (as the positions are measured) in a time-dimension. Far away, this difference in functionality, sort of disappears, time and distance are interchangeable and different observers see different relative times, for the same object position.

Time is a special dimension for observational reasons that are fundamental, and to the idea of information, or a signal. A signal has to be sent; an object can be potential information, but until something from the object is projected, it isn't informational, it stays outside the set of observable events.

Relativity and Lorentz invariance say that time and distance can be different dimensions for different observers, of the same event, or the same position of an object. This is the 'paradox' an invariant speed-limit on the transmission of any signal introduces to a frame of relative observers, of events (photons of light) from a given direction in a (3+1) universe.

Time is then a fundamental dimension locally, in trivial and non-trivial computations. It must always exist locally, as a symmetry-point so that the 'flow' of computation can reverse direction. This is tied to the problem of dissipation and Landauer's principle, and Turing's Universal Machine.

Signals must have at least one other dimension as well as time, so they can be measured in the time one, i.e. in the "time-domain". This is assumed to be universal, but we can't prove this is true because of relativity and Lorentz frames (though a Lorentz transform doesn't conserve phase-volume it conserves phase difference in the volume).
Information can't have just a single dimension.

Ain't that cool? The principle of Universal Computation is only provable locally, in which planes appear flat, or Euclidean.

[Vkothii]

So next time you think about what a computer is, what communication means (it can be one-way, there is nothing in information theory that says it has to be duplexed), and whether some physical system is computing something, you can laugh at the dribble-heads who obviously have never thought about it.

Mathematics is computational and representational. It's an established protocol, it translates information from one representation to another, while preserving certain invariant characteristics of it.
When you "calculate" the area of a circle, you don't do a proof from first principles that shows the formula is in fact, what 'gives' the correct result, you just take a known method - the formula (which has been known for thousands of years), transforms something.

Translocation or transmission of information, with a known protocol, is exactly the same thing as calculating the area of some geometric figure, with a known formula. Information is therefore axiomatic.

[Vkothii]

And just to show, how idiotic some people can look when they try to be "rational and logical", here are three slightly edited copies, of the dismissive comments three different people (one a moderator) made about the whole idea of universal computation (this idea is definitely not pseudoscience), and the universe actually computing, as it actually does constantly, as actual scientists have actually said in public before today.

The last contributor of the three, also implied that my comments about anyonic circuits (another area of research that is definitely hard science), had some sort of problem (though they couldn't bring themselves to say what this problem was).

I hereby salute the three stooges:
Another one: Computer is the universeWell, duhhh!
Another one: the is universe computer.Brilliant, just bloody brilliant.
And another two: the Temur and Ben computer is insignificant mathematically.
And #3:
is the wildly overboard with certain universal (some commonplace, some not) computer interpretations significant?

[Vkothii]

The law of UC cannot be proven, but implies the following:

1) The universe computes (the universe is a computer)

2) Everything in the universe is a computation, or the 'result' of one

3) The law of Universal Computation should apply to everything in the universe, including the universe itself.

4) We cannot prove that such a machine exists however, only that computations exist.