Is the Universe computing something?

So, basically you are stating : "To compute this you must compute...only one dimenstion of infinte time"...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There's no restriction on how fast the universe is expanding. What's expanding is the space between astrophysical objects. The Hubble constant measures this. We have an observable universe. We can't see it all because there's an event horizon at the point where the Hubble constant, expansion rate of the universe, exceeds c relative to the observer. The prediction that space can expand at > c relative to the observer is a calculated prediction.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

how do you mean that the universe and space are expanding? Is space stretching out thinner and thinner? Is there some sort of wall between space and something else that its pushing out into? and if so whats beyond that wall?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Space doesn't have any physical properties so it can't stretch thinner and thinner. What's at the end of our observable universe is an event horizon. This is where space is expanding at the speed of light relative to the observer. After this point it's calculated to expand faster than c. Based on the physics which is observable on the observer side of the horizon. It's calculated not directly observable. Kinda like the spacetime inside black holes. It's calculable but not observable.

 

If space has no physical properties then Einstein was way off that it could bend huh, right? not to mention silly notions like gravity and magnetism existing in space alone.

I take it you mean beyond the wall of your expanding universe. And that still doesn't answer the question of what's beyond this wall. Plus where is there any evidence that space expands? The big bang doesn't imply that.

 

This idea that the universe is like a big computer goes back to Aristotle, and probably further. Although modern computers have changed the meaning of the word compute, this idea, that the universe is predictable--you can calculate the positions of all the planets on some date in the past or the future--goes to our search for order in the universe, which goes way back, probably to when we first started naming and charting the stars.

Anyway, today we also have or will soon, computers that are still predictable, but don't have a well-defined internal state describing each step, instead, quantum computers converge probabilistically on a result. If the universe really is a quantum computer, the rubric goes that what we see--reality--is its classical output.

So that we have, because we can build computers, an apparent "proof" that the universe is predictable and is a computer. But is that just anthropocentrism? Is the reason this idea persists in science, really because of how we think, our brains are also computers, although we don't understand their inner workings all that well?

 

The difference, IMO, is the fact that computers are all programmed exactly the same way. Not so with the human brain. The brain is programmed by *experience* (and some formal programming in schools)
Optical illusions are a perfect example of objective purely objective mathematical object, but is incorrectly inyerpreted by the brain. The brain is limited in that while process of thinking is akin to computing, each brain has limited and different experiences and therefore can only *interpret* information as *best as it can*.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

IMO, you could not fool a computer like this.

 

The human brain is an evolved organ, its connection to the external world is the sum of all sensory inputs, but the senses are based on specialised neurons, all connected to the 'central processor'. Really, the whole organ is the whole of the neural system.
And we know that our senses are limited, if we want to see small things, we need microscopes; our ability to image a lot more input than our senses is, in some sense, a triumph of the logic of our brains over its own (sensory) limitations.

Anyhoo, here we are today with the weird world of quantum mechanics about to become a computational resource. But quantum computers are vastly different from digital computers and Boolean logic.

In a classical bit register n bits wide there is always a single value, and always a fixed description of the state of all registers in a classical computer, this is not the case with quantum bit registers, which have interactions between bits, hence a much wider space than n bits.

To describe the state of a quantum computer with a mere 200 qubits needs a number larger than the number of particles in the universe, so how does a 200 qubit computer access that much resource? or is that just a dumb question: it doesn't because there isn't a physical resource larger than 200 qubits in the system.

 

a) I don't believe you can compute time itself. It has no measurable dimensional properties (geometry) in and of itself, except in *relation* to the duration of physical change.
b) No matter what change takes place, when completed, it will always be later than the starting time.
c) Time itself does not exist, it is a resulting by-product of dynamic change in any spatial direction. Dynamic change always points toward the future.

Therefore, time (duration of change) can only be *counted* as chronologically additive and there cannot be a subtractive counter-chronology of time.
Example, even the count-down to a future starting time of change, still results in a forward time chronology.
Time can only go forward regardless of the direction of motion or action (change).

 

If time does not exist, what about spacetime? Space exist. Time does not. Spacetime will become either space or something else. The concept of time becomes crucial with the concept of spacetime.

 

Everybody's mind/brain is unique.

This fact is experimentally proven. This was also my prediction. Based on this prediction, i developed my theory.

 

Is our universe a black hole?(Just speculating). Our Universe is also having an Event Horizon.

 

[quUOTE="hansda, post: 3358351, member: 151703"]If time does not exist, what about spacetime? Space exist. Time does not. Spacetime will become either space or something else. The concept of time becomes crucial with the concept of spacetime.[/QUOTE]
Yes, space exists , therefore time exists. No space , no time. Our time came into existence with the BB. That's why we call it universal time or spacetime.

 

Is spacetime the universal time?

 

No, that's not why we call it spacetime.

We call it spacetime because in order to properly represent space and time, we have to consider moth how we measure spatial distance and how we measure temporal distances (a metric). Having done this, there is then an objective way to translate between one metric and another and on how to represent motion and forces in each metric.

Now all of spacetime could merely be a means of representing relationships between entities and thus reducible to these relationships. It could also be the case that becoming, the idea that things come into being or change in a real way over time, is merely an illusion of the particular physical characteristics of our minds.

I honestly cannot say what the rest of Write4U's ideas of time mean or if they make sense.

 

Write4U, in the other post you said this:"From the triangle we can build 3D decahedrons and it is suspected that the universal construct is a dodecahedron.". How does energy or time and space or void play into this scheme?

 

The concept of time is crucial in All of existence including the universe., it measures the duration of existence of all things extant. But that does not mean time itself exists as Time, without reference to *something* existing or changing.
It cannot refer to itself.
IMO, there is only a fundamental permittive condition which allows for dynamic change. This change always produces an accompanying measurement of *duration*. This is what logically forced the creation of our concept of *spacetime", the *duration of the existence of universal space*, since it's *beginning* as *spacetime*.

Spacetime is a true *entangled action* between space (physical existence or change) and time (duration of physical existence or change). One cannot exist or function without the other. It is a common universal constant.

 

If we consider space as an abstract geometry, then the triangle is the simplest form of a geometric plane, and because all consequent geometric measurements can be calculated through the modeling of the Platonic Solids.

*Iteration* is the simplest form of propagation. But a good start

 

I'm going to look at something I posed earlier: . . . how do you show that the universe is not a realisation of a formal system?

Since, if you can show this, then the universe can't be computing anything. Well, someone thinks they have shown this very thing, and it's because the universe does not have a "Newtonian Schema", but rather a "Lagrangian Schema", which the author argues is not algorithmic. And . . . here's Kenny: http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.7081v2

Anything we can reasonably call a computer is in the Newtonian schema, because everything is fixed (all paths have a definite history in the phase space). If you sum over possible histories aka Feynman in a Lagrangian schema, there are no definite paths. Or so they say.

 

This is why I am so intrigued by CDT, and its implications.
http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all: AND triangulation AND causal dynamical/0/1/0/all/0/1