Is the Universe computing something?

It all depends on your interpretation of the word *computing*. In context of this thread I use the word in its broadest abstract form, such as processing information in an orderly manner.
In the abstract, the equation; "one value plus a second value yields a sum of both values" (1+1=2), is a form of *computation*. This process needs NOT be intentional, nor sentient.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Look at the words even you use: "seems" "probabilistic

We do a good job of modeling the universe using mathematics. That is not the same thing as the universe acting exactly like mathematics. Nor is it the same thing as the universe taking a string of symbols and presenting a new string of symbols, i.e., computing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is not my argument.

Computation is about symbols and the orderly movement from one set of symbols to another. Symbols require understanding.

I bring up the fact that we only approximate the universe with our mathematical science in order to counter this idea that there is some natural mathematical operations going on.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Computing is any goal-oriented activity requiring, benefiting from, or creating algorithmic processes—e.g. through computers...
or
To determine by mathematics, especially by numerical methods.

So, it appears OP reference is about later definition, which is like calculating / determining. But for whom and for what ? Moreove the computation can be done
without physical manifestation. So I do not think universe is doing anything like computing or determining anything.

What is happening is, sans intelligent intervention, the state of universe is predictable and can be computed by intelligent beings. We as intelligent human beings are capable of destroying the predictibility of local (accessible to us) state of universe part, and we are doing that.

 

I agree

 

Ok, but

You haven't defined 'symbols' or 'understanding'. If you mean decoding or interpreting, that's ok. But computation isn't about understanding.
Symbols are a bit harder to nail down, but logical symbols are just like letters in an alphabet, in the context of formal systems (of logic).

So, suppose you have three symbols: a,b,c without further definition you can now define a language 'over' this set of strings of length 1 (the alphabet). Symbols exist axiomatically in such a system. Now you need a definition of a string of length more than 1, you need some kind of composition logic, you need symmetry! You don't need any definition of 'understanding' beyond 'rule-based' interpretation by a machine.

 

That depends: what do you wish to send??

"...but which part would you like to bring?"-Snatch.

 

I also think randomness has a lot to do with either argument:

we can only approximate the universe which implies we can't build a computer that will simulate our universe (although it won't preclude it from simulating a less complex one, say with fewer dimensions, or no mass, etc),

the other argument, with its many books published by its cognoscenti, is that we would need a computer the size of the universe to simulate our universe, but this computer is the universe (it simulates itself, so to say), and we can only read some of the output or interpret it.​

Now, it's quite likely we can simulate, as exactly as we like, a universe less complex than this one, if we restrict its size. Any computer we can reasonably expect to build will always be restricted by size, so will always approximate our universe in any kind of simulation.

So you can argue that the universe simulating itself is just an abstraction because we will have to build a computer the same size and complexity to demonstrate the reality, the argument is a kind of illusion, or an anthropocentric view extended to, well, to infinity, where it most certainly should not go.

But counter to that is that we might one day be able to simulate exactly a small part of the entire universe on a computer, and so we will be "simulating" the universe, just not all of it.
Will this computer need to be the size of a galaxy, or a galactic cluster?

Then, randomness is something that appears to be necessary in quantum experiments, no randomness, no computation. We can exploit the quantum Zeno effect and "not run" a program but get the result we would have if it did run--quantum logic proves it can do something without actually doing it, by not letting a program run, you could say.

 

The problem here is that, in the case of the universe, there seems no reason to identify any of these things as being present. Especially to call them computations.

 

Don't loose that thought; Arfa tell me where is the "I" located in your mind? I am not a neuroscientist but what I am trying to communicated is a concept. I am also letting you know, you are on to something very important, see if you can connect the dots...Hmm

 

You are touching on the very reason consciousness is possible. These very concepts will lead to conscious machines but like us they will exist in a state of estimation when making calculations. Conscious machines are definitely the next destination for humanity, and this is the line of thinking that will activate thier minds they will essentially self program from the same information humans and animals use to self program.

 

Arfa how do you know you are looking at a chair? Here lies a great insight only if you can see it! Our universe, the laws of physics, our minds all have a very so intimate relationship if you can detect it you could not turn away from the intricate beauty of it all.

 

Find the true value in your thoughs it's important, locate the determined position among random ones, find the "I".

 

A congregration of man and machine is inevitable.

 

I used the word *seems* in context of *more or less predictable*, which is the definition of *probabilistic*.

Well, if we can model natural functions with symbolic representations of *natural values and functions* with computers, these values must be present in some form to begin with or we could not symbolize them in the first place.

The universe does not function symbolically, we do. But it does indeed use values, strings of values, and replication of strings of values, and arrives at a result. Humans themselves are a product of such natural *computations*. Our DNA contains *codes* with on/off growth switches.
(Wether the result of this computational function is a male or a female is probabilistic.)

A perfect example is the "fusion of two chromosomes into a single larger chromosome with greater potential.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

Obviously this was a random (probabilistic) mutation, but it produced a result, which may well be the key to human intelligence.

We do have a semantic difference here. I see every dynamic action which uses several things with an intrinsic value and produces a result as a form of generic computation, while you see a computing strictly as digital binary processing of electrical values. But ask yourself, does a computer process the number 155 as 155 or does it translate the input of the number 155 on your keyboard into the binary sequence of a series of *on and off* switches (10011011) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpuPe81bc2w

But in a wider scope of *generic* computing, even a brainless *slime mold* computes its way through a maze. Moreover, it has some natural computational abilities which we cannot (yet) duplicate in modern digital computers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKZ2LtfDrmg

 

I assume by "those things", you mean symbols, a language etc.

Well, I think Seth Lloyd would disagree, Dirac's bra-ket notation is based on symbols, \( |\phi \rangle \) represents a wavefunction. You can label paths like this \( |1 \rangle ,\; |2 \rangle \). Ok, these are different kinds of symbols, but which of them represents something physical? The language and its rules of composition are based on the complex numbers, specifically complex probability amplitudes which have to be squared. What is this 'squaring' and why is it required?

 

I am happy to know that unicorns exist. Less happy to know that vampires exist. Oh, but fairies exist, so I guess that's good, too!

Exactly. And computing is an activity that relies on symbols. No symbols, no computing.

I see you also believe an overly simplistic idea of genetics and biology in general. I cannot accept your presentation.

Not even. I am sticking with the definition of computing that we have had since 1936. It's about symbols and calculation, not mathematics in general, which you seem to imagine.

 

If the universe is a computer (there would only have been "planetary" life UNTIL it was invented) it will be the result of an equation. Personally I prefer a calculator to a complex dialogue:

x=x+x+1
x=x+x+x+x+1
x=x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+1

The self writing program.

 

Didn't you just return from a ban for this type of nonesense? Are you trying for another ban?

 

Is the universe calculating something. This is a very loaded question it's actually the central question of all questions. If you look at the universe and what it does am sure you can can see how it relates to things like life . The universe is transforming evolving just like life forms are doing the common link. Seemingly humans are built finitely with dna and infinitely with evolution. I believe the universe is calculating a perfect form that also all its individual parts will also assemble in a perfect form following suit.

Newton was a strategic thinker and saw a determined conclusion of existence as the ultimate and he was right. Heisenberg was a tactical thinker and saw that probability was also a significant part of this description, and was also right. But now this is were the fireworks go off and a combination of the two minds merge as one. Enter the conscious observer with the minimum 2 observer system originating from a singular point. This is how I located the "I" in the mind becuase it's not a piece of hardware (organ), it way more special than that. This is why freewill exist.

When conscious machines become awakened and aware this will prove my assumptions. There is a very technical and discrete way I could explain myself but it's more fun to test these things on the machines. We want machines that can assume consiousness without infinite programming they need to effieciently program themselves like humans and animals. I don't know for sure yet but I believe these machines will be born without the use of quantum computers.

Well I will leave you with this though you are a child of the universe and are you not computing something and something more until you reach your final conclusion which is perfect caculations that are not approximations? Why do you do this? You were definitely not the first one to do this, it was predetermined that you will do this or you will die.