Universe from Nothing.

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by praty, Apr 27, 2011.

  1. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,101
    Actually it kind of does. One of the purported notions of Emulation Theory is "How to run an emulator?". The current computer specifications we have to date, all use a linear 2D method of data interpretation, how I mean is the data is fed as an input, processed and outputted in a linear time scope.

    One of the main idea's for this hypothetical emulators designs is to attempt to address this linear method of processing by creating a dual data feed that is also fed inversely to itself. This means when a chunk of data is read, it can be read forwards, it can be read backwards, it can be read with both the front and end at the same time, as well as having the capacity to test the data against it's inverse for integrity.

    The other factor for this hypothetical emulator is that storage devices would also be used to aid in maintaining data integrity (while also reducing model violations [e.g. one universes emulation collapsing into another universes emulator space], if not completely eliminating them.)

    A disc can work but it needs to have at least a preprocessed bidirectional data structure that runs in both directions. (I have some metatypes for how to achieve this.)

    I mention the above because some of the many QM models that have been posed, fit the mechanics behind a universal emulator.

    (* Note that the 2d linear method is applied to single computers, there are still ways of "stepping" from one processed path to another through various forms of networked computers like Cloud systems)
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    You seem to be saying that the laws of physics do not allow for randomness, that everything is predetermined. This is not consistent with the models of the 20th century such as the Heisenberg Principle.
    I understand your argument, but it seems to be nothing more than a hypothesis.

    If you're uncomfortable at the instant when the universe comes into existence, I should bring back the model I presented here a few years ago:

    Just because we sense the flow of time as linear--from our vantage here thirteen billion years after the singularity--doesn't mean that it actually flows that way. I suggest graphing time on a logarithmic scale. That puts the Big Bang at minus infinity. So all questions regarding "what happened before the Big Bang" become as meaningless as "how does matter behave at temperatures below Absolute Zero."

    In this model the universe has always existed. Time passed a lot more slowly in those first couple of yoctoseconds, which should make the events of that moment a little easier to analyze and describe.
    By "information" you refer to the laws of nature. I know it's easy to speculate about a perfectly functional universe in which f does not = ma, much less that the Theory of Relativity is valid.

    Yet we're quite certain that there can be no universe in which 1 + 1 does not = 2. The reason for this is certainty that mathematics is derived from abstractions rather than reality. However, all of those abstractions are formed in our own minds, which are manifestations of the electrical signals in a lump of organic matter which obeys the natural laws. It seems rather arbitrary to say that arithmetic as we know it is valid in any conceivable universe, but Newton's Laws are not, just because we can't quite conceive of a universe with an alternate form of arithmetic.

    On the other hand, and more to the point, it could just as easily be true, for reasons we haven't discovered yet because there's a lot of physics we still don't know, that the natural laws we live with are the only ones that can work. So when the Big Bang happened it could only happen this way, and no "intelligence" was required.

    Besides, your argument starts to sound too much like theology! And it raises the same question: all right then, where did all of that come from?
    That's only true if we graph time on a linear scale. Graph it my way and time has always existed.
    That "something" is a totally empty space-time continuum. As I already suggested, it could be that the physical laws we have are the only ones that there could be. To speculate on the nature of a space-time continuum in which there is no matter and no energy is truly getting into the realm of cosmology, that awkward discipline where physics and philosophy merge uncomfortably with pure mathematics.

    And I still don't understand why the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not allow for a state of complete entropy (nothing) to change into a state of less-than-complete entropy (something, or in this case the Natural Universe), so long as that new state is temporary. My reading of it assures me that this can indeed happen!
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Joe Green Banned Banned

    Messages:
    130
    What a load of hoolah.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,101
    Your entitled to your opinion, however you don't know what I am currently doing and to be honest I'm losing interest in writing on the subject, mainly because I should be concentrating on getting the facts together in a coherent manner rather than just hodge-podging it for you personal enjoyment.
     

Share This Page