There are a group of theories in physics called digital physics and informational physics (which conceive the universe as being/behaving like a computer or an information structure due to the information encoded in it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics)
I'm doing some research in this topic, and I would like you to correct some assumptions I've made (if they are wrong) to ensure i've not made any false/incorrect assumption about the theory:
Correct me if I am wrong
1. When we say that the universe is information we mean that the universe is computable information and could behave like a computer
2. Even if something in the universe was not that type of information, a structure like the brain (a biological brain, a boltzmann brain or even an hypothetical omniscient boltzmann brain capable of thinking/knowing anything of whatever dimensions, characteristics, nature, logic/mathematic/non-mathematical/illogic nature...etc (anything)) could see it or capture its characteristics. That data that would exist inside that brain would be information that could be encoded in a universe so what the brain thinks/knows/sees would exist or happen in that universe (behaving like a brain)
3. This could happen in more ways than in the quantum way (I mean, the universe could be like a classical computer and brain (in the case space time was only classical/continuous), like a quantum computer and brain (in the case space time was quantum/discrete)...etc)
Thank you
It may be that any or all of the computable universe theories are correct in some universe or other.
However they fall into my category of useless junk theories.
Not because there is anything wrong with them per-se, but because they are trivial in the sense that;
- there is no evidence for their postulations
- no way of detecting any sense of truth in them
- and perhaps more importantly - no way of using or developing these theories in any meaningful or practical way.
They are harmless fantasies that make a good groundwork for science fiction or forum discussions, but if I can't see a way of making money from the knowledge....they get whizzed into the junk bin.
Hi Alejandro
Thank you for your message. I understand now your interest and will try to be more supportive.
When Alan Turing defined his concept of computability, his primary assumption was 'that it was possible to determine from the current state of a system, all future states'. This is known as "determinism".
Thus, if you know the fundamental state of every quanta of 'information' about a system then you can predict all future states.
Similarly, if you know the position, direction and energy level of every particle in the universe then it is possible to predict the future state of all particles, bodies and systems in the universe. The system is defined as fully computable.
However, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle cast doubt on the very basics of such computability. This principle holds that you cannot define or know both the position and spin of any quantum particle simultaneously. If you cannot know all the information about the current state, then you cannot calculate or determine any future state. Following on from that, if you cannot compute the state of particles at the nano level then it is difficult to compute the state at the macro level.
However we know that at the galactic level, the state of individual particles is largely irrelevant because the statistical nature of the heavenly bodies makes them entirely predictable and computable.
With respect to the idea that somehow we can extrapolate this computability concept to define the universe as a large calculating machine, capable of intelligent thought, then some fundamental issues start to appear.
Defining the current state of every sub-system is insufficient to calculate the future state. There must be a definition of 'decision gates' or controls where alternative futures can be initiated.
Boltzmann himself defined statistical conditions where it is impossible to predict the future outcome of a complex system because of the random nature of energy. His concept is extensively used in AI to understand 'false minima' information states.
Hi Alejandro
I'm Gaurav I'm from India & I think the concept about digital physics is right but don't relate with a computer world u can relate it with neuron which is spread in universe according to me & I'm not a scientist but I'm a good observer & I'm working with my theory that's Mind generate Time & neuron of mind Help to generate.Everything in this world is controlling by a power
See the last SS post in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Digital_physics_and_informational_approaching_to_the_physics_in_the_universe?view=5ab486b7dc332de89e118832
Cheers
Dear Alejandro Novo,
“…So now I understand that although there's no experimental evidence, matter could be considered as the physical brain of a "Super consciousness". I mean, that consciousness could use the matter as a "hard disk" (like our consciousness uses our brain as a stable residence or "hard disk")…”
Yeah, that is “теплее” [“warmer”] as would be in Russian. However a suggestion about some “Super consciousness” has only very small relation to the problem, where the correct answer is as simply “Matter fundamentally cannot [abstractly] think”, independently on there is some consciousness or not.
As to the possible, nonetheless, version with some Super consciousness
[the “Information” Set is absolutely infinite, and in the Set anything is possible, including some Matter’s Creator; at that the informational system the “at least on Earth existent consciousness” can be not a Creator’s product, but be existent independently in the Set in parallel],
seems all what can be rational noted is that Matter isn’t seemed as a brain, because of that It is a rigorously logically organized informational system, where informational exchange proceeds with constant maximal speed [the speed of light]. So, since Matter has very large “size”, the exchange between different regions happens with retardations in billions of years, what seems as rather inconvenient for an effective “hard disk”.
However, again, that is now nothing more then a food for science fiction authors.
And, relating to “like our consciousness uses our brain as a stable residence or "hard disk"…”
- it seems as rather probable that human’s [and not only, that is true for any living being with a brain] consciousness uses the brain not as “or”, but as the both, “hard disk” and the stable residence.
Cheers
1) "quantum" does not mean "discrete". Quantum observables could have continuous spectra.
2) It is very difficult to make computational model of quantum world at classical computer, because the number of variables rises exponentially with number of particles.
We know, that our wold is quantum one, so, if the world is a brain, the brain have to be quantum too.
Mikhail is right (point 2). the world should operate with more than fuzzy logic model (not to mention binary logic...)
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Theoretical Physics