Dear @ Zbigniew Motyka

Thank you for your answer,

You said that "Geometry of space time is continuous entity only in Classical Physics. In Quantum world it is no longer such.

So the merging is not possible"

Are you saying that the universe cannot be thought as behaving/being as a quantum computer or a "quantum information structure" (like a boltzmann brain) because of that?

If yes, then why Lloyd defends that the universe is a quantum computer if that is impossible?

My main question is: What do you mean with "So the merging is not possible"

About Multiverse see, for example, https://www.researchgate.net/post/Given_our_current_understanding_of_the_universe_our_observations_and_knowledge_of_everything_in_physics_can_you_prove_the_multiverse_idea

Cheers

1. файл subtopics.txt - 20 topics from scientific articles on “universe model”

2. файл a1_basic_articles.xlsm- articles that are considered the most valuable by those who deal with universe model

=

Here are 20 topics from the articles which contain words "universe model" in their titles. Each topic is presented with 20 words and 20 phrases as it is done in these articles.

As from privious experience not more then 30% of these topics will be useful for you.

Reading these topics will require efforts from you, since this is not a coherent presentation, and each topic is a list of substances, methods, theories, cases, etc. associated with this topic. Try to be patient, in the hope that new hypotheses and thoughts will appear.

Feel free to make Feedback

Sincerely yours,

Fedor Kovalev & Valery Kugler

Dear Alejandro Novo,

“1. When we say that the universe is information we mean that the universe is computable information and could behave like a computer”

It is proven in the “The Information as Absolute” conception that there cannot be something else besides some informational patterns/systems of the patterns that are elements of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set, see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute DOI 10.5281/zenodo.268904 [the conception exists from 2007, however nowhere in the Wiki you can meet some mention about it]

And our Universe, which is composed by two [three] main informational systems “Matter”, “Alive”, and “Consciousnesses” is some informational system also, which is absolutely infinitesimal, comparing with the Set, sub-Set.

The sub-sub-Set “Matter” is the informational system that is built and evolves basing on a rather limited set of rather simple logical rules and links between material objects [particles, bodies…] at that at the interactions of the objects, i.e. at informational exchanges, exclusively true information is used.

That seems like a computer, but [though that isn’t too principal] not completely, in Matter with a large probability there are no “processor”, “RAM”, “hard disk” ,etc. Matter exists and evolves constantly as some set of rather independent, always constantly running, automata that are united in a system by the universal interaction “Gravity”.

That on micro level interactions become be quantized, doesn’t change this picture principally/essentially, at least by two reasons (i) – the energies involved in the processes in Matter are mostly well above quantum levels, and (ii) even some QM effects are essential, since in Matter huge number of such interaction constantly happen the averaged results are practically certain. .

The points that relates to “exotic brains” in your posts seems as rather strange scientifically; and so cannot be commented.

More see the link above,

Cheers

Dear Alejandro Novo,

“…Can I ask you why do you say that merging boltzmann brains with the theory that a universe can behave/work as a quantum computer is strange and non-scientifical? Boltzmann brains are information structures that work under quantum principles (close to a quantum computer)…”

for any discussion could have a sense it is necessary before to define main notions/terms that are used in the discussion; in this case the notion/phenomenon “brain”.

This notion/phenomenon really has [at least] two definitions: (i) - incorrect one [in the mainstream science and in the maijority of other people, when the bvrain executes the consciousness’ functions, first of all – abstract thinking; just this version is used in your list], and (ii) – the correct one, in the “The Information as Absolute” conception.

However even in the mainstream version the exotic brains, that you listed, aren’t defined on the level, when that could be discussed scientifically; since are some completely bare declarations that have no any experimental base. The “indeed”, i.e. human’s brain, even in the mainstream, is rather active, constantly transformed structure, where the transformations are well experimentally studied by the neurophysiology.

Nothing like brain processes/Matter’s transformations is observed till now, when astronomy sees processes on billons of light years [and so on billions of years in time], Matter everywhere is the same as near Earth; if Matter is a brain, it thinks seems too slowly.

In the reality Matter, again, is some huge set of some rigorously organized logical chains/automata that are united in a system by universal [informational, since there cannot be something else] fundamental Nature force “Gravity”, and so Matter is a huge automaton also.

Thus any material object, even created by human’s fundamentally non-material consciousness supercomputers [which in a lot of traits well imitate thinking processes], cannot think, i.e. to process any, including false and uncertain, and so new also, information. All they can only evolve from one state into other state in accordance with established initial conditions and a program, which are materially [as, e.g., potentials on a computer’s cheeps contacts] written in correponding automaton; any supercomputer doesn’t differ principally from, for example, “Kalashnikov” or “steam locomotive” automata, which seems evidently don’t think. And the automaton “Matter” doesn’t differ also.

However just because of the above,material automata are very stable structures; and, for example, the human’s consciousness, which is fundamentally non-material informational self-aware system, uses the practically material human’s body and a little lesser material brain as the stable residence and the “hard disk” at the thinking.

That is, we can consider Matter as a brain only in the conception above, when can suggest that Matter is some [by the correct definition] brain of some Super-Consciousness, for example of possible Matter’s Creator. Nonetheless, returning to the above, for that seems there is no experimental evidences; Matter seems is more like the body, or a storage of Energy, which is necessary for the Super Consciousness could exist and think; thinking processes, since are dynamical, fundamentally consume energy.

More see, again, the paper “The Information as Absolute” linked in the SS post above in this thread and at least second half of https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321757886_The_Information_as_Absolute_conception_Marxism_and_now DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.1116209

.Cheers

this link is useful

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics

regards

“this link is useful

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics

regards”

this link can be useful practically only in that (i) - in this Wiki article indeed rather completely the state of the “mainstream” “digital physics” is presented, including (ii) from the article content seems as rather evidently follows that most of concepts, doctrines, etc., which are called “digital physics” are nothing more then some bare premises that have no any ground besides the well known fact that applications of mathematics [when mathematics can be very effectively elaborated by computers, which are “digital machines”] allows to describe material objects and processes very adequately.

However that was known seems at least 2500 years ago, when Pythagoras asserted that “All consists of digits”; and so the listed in the article items practically don’t add something new to this Pythagoras’s claim.

However in this case is very important exclusion, i.e. C. F. von Weizsäcker’s outstanding guess in early 1950-th, that Matter in depth is some binary logical system, i.e. that Matter’s base are some binary elements. In those time the word “bit” wasn’t so popular as that happened after the first computers appeared, and so Weizsäcker called these binary elements “Urs”, the archetypal name in German for the binary alternatives:

C. F. von Weizsäcker.: Eine Frage Über die Rolle der quadratischen Metrik in der

Physik. Zeitschrift für Naturforschung, 7 a: 141, (1952).

C. F. von Weizsäcker.: Komplementarität und Logik. Die Naturwissenschaften, 42: 521–529, 545–555, (1955.);

Besides Weizsäcker obtained once more indeed concrete outstanding metaphysical, which is quite important for physics, result: he showed that for Matter be a bimary system it is necessary for the space be 3D, as that is in the reality.

Further Weizsäcker developed a version of the quantum mechanics, which bases on the points above

C. F. von Weizsäcker.: The Structure of Physics. Springer P.O. Box 17, 3300 AA Dordrecht, The Netherlands.(2006) (Aufbau der Physik,1985)

However in this Wiki article there is no information about these Weizsäcker’s works, though the mentioned in the aricle [doctrine] “It from Bit” in nothing else then translation from German of the Weizsäcker’s “It from Urs”

And when the article mentiones about Weizsäcker’s works that writes

“Physicist Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker's theory of ur-alternatives (theory of archetypal objects)” (!?)

when it should be as “Physicist Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker's theory of ur-alternatives (theory of binary alternatives)"

as well as in the Wiki article about Weizsäcker’s

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Friedrich_von_Weizs%C3%A4cker

there are no menions about the outstanding papers above.

The Pythagoras’ and others’ premises that Matter is some logical system become be grounded only in the Shevchenko and Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” 2007 conception https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute DOI 10.5281/zenodo.268904

and the informational physical model https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics DOI 10.5281/zenodo.16494

that [the model] follows from the conception, where a number of fundamental physical problems become be much more clear then that is in the mainstream physics. A few examples see SS posts in two last pages in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_time_an_illusion?view=5af980e5f677ba2c557dabe4

But there is nothing in Wiki about the conception and model; when the submitted corresponding papers were rejected by editors of few tens of official philosophical and physical journals.

Cheers