Is the Universe computing something?

Hmmm....but then why all the surprises of whats going on ; out there?

And what is this Universe computing energy based on ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

1 + 1 = 2 , addition is an abstract dynamic mathematical action.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What is surprising to you?

Universe is not computing but universe can be computed.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I understand (and agree) what you are saying but like to add a thought.

The original energy and its potential to do work, was created during the BB (inflation).

But , river, I have a feeling you are interpreting the *computations* of the universe incorrectly. The input is probabilistic in that there is no *intent*. The probabilistic interactions of the 4 fundamental forces (potentials) is all that are needed to produce a physical result in that they are both permittive of some interactions and restrictive of other interactions.

We can simulate this process by building a computer which follows these principles of *allowed* and *disallowed* actions, producing an approximation of Natural processes. Cern is a good example of *imitating* certain universal actions, and has taught us some of the fundamental functions which take place naturally everywhere in the universe at scales well beyond our normal observational abilities.

 

I guess or that the behavior of the realtionship between quarks and observable outcomes of particles are basicaly an optical illusion due to the general relativity of an expantion that is happening right before our eyes is kind of ironic the perception of reality aint it

 

On another note but same unvierse lol i was theorising about how we live in a world where everything eats everything and they have made a new series of the unvierse being called a cannabil wich brings me to my original idea that quarks feed of other quarks eliminating eachother for energy to move forward bc nothing can go in the past it is imopssible and would create a destruvive wave collapsing everything into zero energy and space just like we do by consuming a cornerstone for the fundamentls in the (soleuniverse)

 

Simulation on this scale is galactic not enough energy to compute any real immitation to the phsics of quantom mechanics on a chart that is understandable to super amount of information is biologicaly our brain is not strong enough and we are in aww everythine kind of frustrating to dig that deep into elements that we will never find but are a birth chart pf elements to say wich came first in order to make a diagram unless these coinsided with eachother at there time of exsistance also making our predictions incomplete with the collider only scraching the surface with phsical hard material to study from light years away in key points of the unvierse to obstract all the needed parts to make a complete biography of the universe and its building blocks as if this defeats the purpose only one variable i can conclude from this lack and if this lack was fullfilled there will always be the phenomenon of luck wich summs up certain scenerios to take place by only an act of pure luck. Einsteen believed in luck Gods way of letting his presence known

 

It has a lot to do with how we define information--at what level of some chunk of matter such as a rock, do we have "enough" information to calculate some changing property (heat content)? Information in physics is down to what can safely be ignored, roughly. One could use an infrared camera say, to gauge the temperature of a rock, in which case a lot of information is not being considered by the physical measurement.

Information cannot be unphysical, and yet, this is exactly what quantum information seems to be. Look at the description of a which-path quantum experiment from another thread:

"Did it take the hard or soft path individually?
That cannot be, as the output in either case is half white and half black.
Did it take both?
That cannot be, because the electron can always be measured to travel on one path or another and not on both at the same time.
Did it take no path at all?
That cannot be, because putting in both walls removes all output.
What the heck is going on? What we are facing is that for all electrons in the apparatus, the route they take is not an individual path, not both paths, and not no path at all. There do not appear to be any other logical possibilities, so what are they doing anyway?" . . .

Only when we measure quantum states do we get classical information, and quantum computation appears to be able to access a much larger space of interactions, aka entanglement as a computational resource. Quantum (entangled) states are a basis for a computation, as long as no classical information about these states is available--absolutely no register peeking.

 

So, at best a computer can simulate the Universe; whereas the universe is the Natural process unfolding at every instant of time.

This is also a good example of how computers are being used for computing the universe and unfolding its mystery.

 

About entanglement.
Are all quantum particles entangled, iow, does every quantum particle have a twin which spins the other way?

If that is the case and every quantum particle in this universe does have a twin, that would mean there is a twin universe which looks exactly like this universe with only one difference, particle spin. Is there a *mirror* function to this universe?

But if this sounds far fetched, how many particles ARE entangled? Are there individual particles which do NOT have an entangled twin? If so, what does the term *entanglement* mean and what does that imply?

 

I think entanglement of quantum particles spin is due to "conservation of angular momentum". When a new quantum particle is formed in the universe, it will be having a nonzero angular momentum due to its spin. So, the other quantum particle should spin in such a way that vector summation of angular momentums of the two entangled particles will become zero, to conserve the total angular momentum.

 

I think thats a great point and also brings me to my third supporting reason for considering there is only one soul universe also as in reference to two realitys that coinside in the same space but in other dimentions not parrallel universes. explaining not merely from a christian stand point but also as a scientific skeptic that these two forces of equal but different attributes be in harmony and have a undecaying effect would insinuate a heaven but that is all hypothetical thinking as being expressed as someone logical for the sake of ones present day perception of being considered sain by there peers when most outright thinkers were considered to by odd with many peculiar habits and some religious christian beliefs. i would for the sake of argument theorize orders given for this activity maybe be a process as a tool in order for (life to travel )using these particles as a vehicle would make sense in the fallen state of the univers as in comparison to a cannobilistic and creative universe and as it expands is safe to say it will still coinside with the notion of a driving mechanism for matter to spontaniously travel or occur and then to develope in to life was provided before matter was created in the dimention of a spirtual realm first as we will return to that mirror plane of we can call non reality as in other words the oppisite of life and death unexplainable or explainable in a phantom philosophy of what is possible and not possible making a mathmatical description of phsics contradictive but sound in a sense it will generate the precise equation but will never understand the main Purpose thus eliminating a complete answer. Excuse the typos multi tasking

 

What is Purpose? In bio-chemistry *purpose* is the fulfilling of *necessity and sufficiency*. IMO, this equation needs NOT be a sentient purpose, but a natural effect created by the 4 fundamental forces.

I have great wonder and respect for the natural evolution of the universe. Given enough time, space, and surface area for chemical reactions, it is almost certain that spacetime (and its dynamic qualities) will result in particle interaction, which evolve into more and more complex forms.

But personally, I see absolutely no need to assign intentional purpose (programming) to the process.
Example; the law of falling bodies is not an intentional command. It is the simple result of gravity and gravity is a mindless by-product of a massive object distorting space in it's vicinity.

 

About entanglement: This only really has meaning in the context of measurement. Measurement must be classical to get information as we know it, i.e. some kind of message.
There is also the context of quantum measurement: when a pair of particles interact, say by scattering off each other, they become entangled, a quantum measurement (or preparation) has occurred.
Note, this is all so we can make sense of it, we don't "know" what a quantum measurement is (except in the abstract) and we can't, because if we try to find out it will mean doing a classical measurement.

This entanglement can be measured classically by choosing some property, such as position (path), or spin, or actually any property. If you measure the spin of one particle, you measure correlated spin in the other. If instead you measure spin on one particle and say, position on the other, there isn't any correlation (that makes any sense classically).

So finding out if a particle has an entangled partner somewhere else in the universe (good luck with that), means measuring both particles the same way.

 

I get this. It is because you don't understand what computing is.

Computing is working through the steps of a calculation. Physical systems don't do this, they merely act how they act. Thinking beings can manipulate physical systems in order to get them to operate, roughly, as if they were carrying out these steps. But it takes a thinking being to set up a physical system to set up input symbols and output symbols. Without symbols, no calculation. Without thinking, no symbols.

Sure. It's also not a computation and not a calculation.

 

Having used computers for 20 years as accountant and writing several spreadsheets using DOS programming language, I have some idea of the concept of computing.

And, pray tell, how do they act? Randomnly or with a certain order to it?

Your statement assumes there are no universal mathematical symbols! But if you care to look , you can find them all arounds us, all the time, for 14 billion years. We just *formalized* these symbols and functions into human language, but the very fact we are able to symbolize the natural *orderly functions, it cannot be denied that the universe functions mathematically. Hence the recurring natural *states, forms, and orders*.

You're mixing up *intentional* programming to achieve a specific result and the *natural* programming in accordance with the mathematics of physical interactions

If something has no orderly (calculable) computational qualities and functions, then it must be random and chaotic.
Is that what you see. Of course you see it, you are just using a false premise that all this happens Intentionally rather than Probabilistically. They both work, so why the need for a motive.
Question: can *gravity* and the *law of falling bodies* be symbolised and mathematically processed by *human* use of computational symbols and programs?

If so, then the natural mathematical principles and processes of the 4 fundamental laws of nature ARE functioning at all times. IOW, the universe is always performing mathematical computations, it just doesn't know it's doing it.

IT DOES NOT KNOW HOW OR WHY! IT DOES NOT EVEN KNOW IT IS COMPUTING POTENTIAL PROBABILITIES, BUT IT DOES, BECAUSE IT MUST!

If you want to make a theistic argument, then the one thing I would hang my hat on is the premise that a God installed (programmed) the 4 fundamental laws (as well as *uncertainty*) into existence along with creation.

My viewpoint is that there is a hierarchy of mathematical *states* of dynamical ordering, from the most subtle abstract to gross expression in (our) reality. No Motive, no Intent, just a dynamic processing of values, functions, and equations.

And because mathematics are very simple and, interestingly, also based on 4 fundamental functions of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division, it is possible for us to translate these qualities into OUR mathematical language.

IMO, the processes of mathematical data and potentials. (values and equations) IS a form of computing, but without the need for a Programmer.

 

I feel the other way but agree with the idea there does not need to be a rule book bc these are premeditated action of something that must have almost a concience if not to sound crazy lol maybe a super network and size is irrelevant only to iur perception but as far at steps there should be a alpha and omega except the super natural other reality death wich is possibley a gift of our timely dimise if this is our entagled bodies and concience are trapped or we are chemical reactions there is no witness we can investigate before hand the big bang as if we had a video recorder and gathered every space since the first conception of the universe we would be missing the one but most important piece of the steps in order to achieve such grace would be only Godly given but in ultimate theory possible if asked or ordained by a creator not mindless gravity wich is not the most powerful force in the universe.

 

No, you don't. You have a superficial idea of what we get the things we call computers to do, which usually isn't computing.

Like what? Are you peddling some kind of religion here?

No, I'm sticking to a) what a calculation and a computation is and not confusing it with b) approximations of physical systems that we can perform with mathematics and c) actual physical systems.

It can be approximated.

Facts not in evidence.

 

If humans can only approximate the universal mathematical functions, then the fault lies with humans, not the universe, it seems to function quite well on probabilistic mathematics..

 

But you must be aware that this idea, the universe computes, is pervasive. I just googled "which scientists say the universe computes" and got over 16 million hits. If I put quotes around the first two words this shrinks to a mere 89,800 hits.
I'm not sure how sound an argument the universe computes is, but I'm equally unsure about the argument that since the computers we build can only approximate reality, the universe can't be a computer, or something.