The Universe Is Not Like a Computer by Lorraine Ford

Jonathan Kerr

Thanks Lorraine,

well, that makes sense. From what you say elsewhere, I'd say it looks very much like 'information' is the wrong word for what you have in a universe without lifeforms. There's no-one to inform, and I'd say you just have the objective nature of the universe.

I think 'information' implies what we get from the universe, rather like the difference between 'landscape' and 'terrain', where the 'landscape' is with or without us there, while 'terrain' sometimes implies a hint of consideration about what humans will do with the place. But that goes off into semantics, and there's little need to really. Thanks for your reply.

best wishes, Jonathan

Lorraine Ford

Jonathan,

I am astonished that you could interpret my words as in any way confirming your idea of an "objective nature of the universe": what I am saying is the exact opposite of this!!

Hector,

I guess Jonathan's interpretation of my words just goes to show that meaningful information exists in the subjective interpretation of code (words), not in the code (words) itself.

I think that subjective information experience can be almost precisely represented, especially at the level of fundamental particles. But I refute any suggestion that subjective meaning can be fully formalized, i.e. fully formally represented. This comes from the fact that there is a difference between the symbol and what a symbol represents: there is a difference between subject and object.

Best wishes,

Lorraine

[deleted]

Hello Ms Ford,

You know Ms Ford,I beleive that you cannot so see the truth.:) What ?My theory of spherization of course.

Don't complicate your mind with an ocean of irrational informations, make the redondance for the sortings. But you know, the ultim informations, fermionic are the keys and the probabilities , there, have nothing to do with the codes of evolution inside the main central spheres.

Each person is free to think about what they want. But I must show you where are your errors :)

Let's return about this Universe and its codes. Let's put on the side, this shannon informations and entropy and its probablilities. Indeed the Universe is not a computer. That said, the universal system is coded inside singularities, the central main spheres. Let's consider that it is the ultim information and entropy, and so the fractal of spheres and the serie of uniqueness permits to see the steps. I am sorry to tell you that in fact all is coded. The Universal sphere needs codes. If not we shall not have the planets or stars or this or that.In fact The Universe is a big universal machine in optimization.The informations need a taxonomy. It is the objectivity which is very important. The informations of complementarity are just bosonic. It is important to make the differences.

About the theory of information. It is just a mathematical method for encodings and the transfer of informations. The shannon entropy is not a thermodynamical entropy or a mecanical entropy !!! and the logarythms and algorythms shall not change this evidence :) in fact, the binar codes are just a human invention.

I wish you all the bests for this contest. If I could, I will offer you a salix integra "Hakuro Nishiki", Splendid small tree , but not in full sun !!! :)

Regards

Spherically yours

[deleted]

The encoding can be very relevant if we begin with this serie of uniqueness.

so the fractal of spheres and its finite number.

we can so encode quantum spheres and their number .....so we have the H C N O ...giving so the A T G C for animals for example .....the building can be universal. I am insisting about the serie of uniqueness and the fractal of spherical volumes. The quantization of evolution correlated with the increasing of entropy correlated with the informations become very very relevant.

If the number is not finite, like a pure finite group, it is not possible to simulate the universal encoding.

Best Regards

[deleted]

Now my equations can be inserted with an universal link between all phyzical spheres. The sysnchronizations can be seen with the volumes and the rotations spinal and orbital. The oscillations and the frequances are unique for each system of unqueness. The quantization appears with proportions with mass and rotatings spherical volumes of this serie of uniqueness.

mcosV=cosnstant is very relevant when we consider that the fermions trun in opposite sense than bosons. The gravitation appears with an universal evidence. E=m(c cubic o cubic s cubic )it means that the 3 motions of spheres of light must be considered. We see the synchronization appearing. The informations can be correlated with the spherical oscillations and frequences and periodicities.If we consider that the space, mass and light are the same if we extrapolate a kind of zero absolute, so it becomes relevant. The rotations and motions make the spherical road of spherization. The fermionic volumes are relevant. An other relevance is the the superimcompressiblility of spheres of light,like an incompressible liquid. The space and the lattices so become interesting for the combinations of evolution.Furthermore the correlation between quantum uniqueness and cosmological uniqueness becomes so evident. In fact the quantum uniqueness is like a relativistic foto of our cosmological sphere and its spheres. The central spheres are essential for a real understanding of codes of distribution, spherical of evolution spherization optimization.

Best Regards

Lorraine Ford

Steve,

I'm sorry, I can't understand what you are talking about.

Cheers,

Lorraine

[deleted]

Logic , perhaps 50 or 100 persons are able to understand the gnerality of my works. So don't worry.And if an algorythmic superimposing is inserted, it is logic also.

You do not understand my equations or the fact that the Universe is a sphere and the elementary particules also. You prefer the name ball or sphere. It is not a probelm for the genralists. I knew that this planet was corrupted, but at this point I didn't imagine it. Just for this papper governing our lifes.

Sad reality isn't it ?

Sad universality in fact. In fact the world is sick due to bad systems. Bad governances = chaos. Good governances=harmony

Regards

Jonathan Kerr

Hello Lorraine,

for me to find out what you think, I need to remove life forms from the equation. So I've been asking you about a universe devoid of life, or pre- the development of life, in the hope that you'll tell me what kind of information can exist there. Because you say information is 'subjective', it's hard to see what you mean.

This is to try to resolve the apparent paradox of you saying:

"an information infrastructure underlies all other reality"

And also:

"subjective experience is the beginning and end of information"

But you don't stay long enough on the question of the universe before life arose for me to find out what you're saying. You jump back to questions about communication almost immediately.

So it seemed to me that perhaps there was just a question about how we use the word 'information', and that maybe that was the only place where we differ. But now it seems that perhaps I was mistaken to think that.

Best wishes, Jonathan

Lorraine Ford

Hello Jonathan,

I think that everything is internal to the universe. There are no external observers with objective points of view; there are only internal observers whose point of view is necessarily subjective. To a subject, the rest of reality including itself is a bit like an object. But in general, objective reality is something that is discovered by, and agreed on, by subjects e.g. scientists. This is the only way we can know objective reality.

A subjective observer in the universe is an experiencer of information: at the particle level there is e.g. mass and charge information; at the level of living things there must seemingly be many levels of information including executive level need-to-know type information. Physical reality is mainly accounted for by information alone. This information leads to physical outcomes in the next moment in time.

When you look at mathematical representations of the laws of nature, you see that the universe we know exists mainly because of information and information relationships. I contend that subjective experience is the entirely natural way that information is apprehended in the universe, even at the particle level. From our point of view a particle is a bit like an object, but I think that a particle is itself a subjective point of view on the rest of reality.

Cheers,

Lorraine

Jonathan Kerr

Hello Lorraine,

Well I don't know what you think about the universe before life emerged, but I'll leave it there. Thanks for the discussion, and good luck.

Best wishes, Jonathan

Lorraine Ford

Jonathan,

You say: "I need to remove life forms from the equation. So I've been asking you about a universe devoid of life, or pre- the development of life, in the hope that you'll tell me what kind of information can exist there."

But what is your definition of information? In my essay and subsequent posts e.g. to Lawrence B. Crowell, I point out that the way Information Theories conceptualise information leads to confusion: a 2011 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article says that "Information is a conceptual labyrinth", and concludes by saying: "The problem is that we still have to agree about what information is exactly". (Semantic Conceptions of Information, based on Luciano Floridi's work, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/information-semantic)

In previous posts (not posts to you) I have tried to explain at length what's wrong with the way "Information Theories" view information. I contend that information is not about coded information or mathematical manipulations of measures of coded information: meaningful ("pure") information is information that leads to physical outcomes in "the next moment in time". Meaningful information is subjective experience: there is no other sort of information; clearly code is not information until it is decoded with a code book or inner knowledge and becomes subjective experience.

In relation to meaningful information/subjective experience, I think it is clear that particles are things that existed before the development of complex life. My view is that a particle is a subjective point of view on the rest of reality and that a particle subjectively experiences information (e.g. mass and charge). I've tried to put the subjectivity of information in context: it follows naturally from being internal to the universe.

Re the emergence of life: surely you can't think that life is something weird and totally unrelated to what came before it?

Cheers,

Lorraine

Jonathan Kerr

Hello Lorraine,

thanks for answering my question. I was just curious to understand your view, and I do now, more than before anyway. You think a particle has a subjective viewpoint, I think it doesn't. I don't think life is "unrelated to what came before it" (that would be weird!), but I think subjectivity develops further up the ladder than the particle. So we simply disagree about at what point a subjective viewpoint arises.

Frames of reference are viewpoints, and they existed before living creatures, and therein lies room for confusing two separate kinds of viewpoints. To me, a reference frame is not subjective, it's a physical viewpoint only.

Anyway, SR is comparatively simple in relation to that, but QM is not. Particularly because the jury is still out on how we should interpret quantum theory, either you or I could be right. In fact, either you or I could be right anyway.

Best of luck, Jonathan

Lorraine Ford

Hello Jonathan,

Thanks for your good luck wishes, and good luck to you too - you seem to be doing well in the community ratings.

I'm relieved that I have finally been able to answer your question! One point I would like to add is this: Quite apart from the issue of subjectivity, I think that there is an issue of how fundamental information in the universe could be apprehended at the particle level. I think that experience is a primitive thing: the entirely natural way that information is apprehended in the universe.

Cheers,

Lorraine

pjackson

Ford

Lorraine

"matter at the particle level is equivalent to 'pure' information." what a clear and beautiful statement to drag abstraction back to reality, ranking along with; "...mathematics represents an artificial reality space"!

I too asked what is it underlying 'information'. What is it that changes from 'state to state' to give a 1 or 0 that then defines the classical universe, even causally?

A lovely essay, well argued and very readable without delving into technobabble. 130th is certainly way too low for it, so a good score coming from me.

In terms of the content and questions. I'm quite convinced I've resolved a few answers in my own essay and do hope you'll be able to read it and comment (and score it before the deadline!) but you must promise to tell me if you think I haven't gone fundamental enough or have missed something (or if you struggle with the iambic pentameter). Your 'enlightened programmer' view will be of great interest to me.

Well done, and many thanks

Peter

Lorraine Ford

Peter,

thanks for your praise of my essay, and thanks for giving me a good score for it.

I will certainly read your essay and let you know what I think. This is one thing I'm having trouble with: reading enough essays!

Cheers,

Lorraine

Benjamin Dribus

Dear Lorraine,

I just finished reading your essay. You examine some very deep problems about the interplay among concepts such as information, meaning, context, codes, complexity, subjectivity versus objectivity, and so on. You also discuss the relationship of humans/observers/consciousness to these concepts. A few thoughts come to mind.

1. I agree that the information in the universe is not "about" anything else (as you point out on page 4), and hence doesn't represent "coded information." However, it seems to me that physical systems do tend to share important physical characteristics with computers: both involve networks of cause-and-effect relationships, both exhibit behavior that is partly determined by initial and boundary conditions and that is at least partially described by mathematical laws.

2. I say "at least partially," of course, because of quantum effects. This is one way in which the universe cannot possibly be like an ordinary digital computer, which is deterministic. "Quantum computers" may be a different story in this regard. Some people disbelieve that workable quantum computers can be built (see Joy Christian, for instance), but if they can be constructed, it is my hope that they may be able to model certain aspects of fundamental-scale physics (if you are interested, you might look at the last part of my essay here for more about this).

3. The concept of "what a computer knows," which you discuss on page 3, is interesting to consider. One thought along these lines is the paradoxical question of how a physical theory can discover itself. In recent generations, some physicists have become preoccupied with the idea of a "theory of everything," and at the same time, proponents of strong artificial intelligence have predicted that computer intelligence will soon outstrip all human abilities. Now suppose that a superhuman machine intelligence discovers a "theory of everything." In this scenario, a machine governed by certain laws discovers these very same laws! This seems a bit paradoxical. (Using artificial intelligence in this thought experiment allows us to set aside the controversial issue of whether or not human beings possess nonphysical attributes such as spirituality, free will, etc. that might entail some ability to view the universe from "outside.")

4. Personally, I think that mathematical laws of physics at the most fundamental level will be more descriptive than prescriptive; i.e., they will be more about what actually happens than about what MUST happen. The "universal Schrodinger equation" I mention in my essay is of this type.

I enjoyed your essay! Good luck with the contest, and take care,

Ben Dribus

Lorraine Ford

Dear Ben,

Glad you enjoyed the essay, and thanks for your good wishes - good luck to you too in the essay contest.

I have my doubts about a superhuman machine intelligence which discovers a "theory of everything". One reason is: how would such computers/machines represent the non-deterministic elements of reality which, by definition, are not able to be precisely represented by either people or machines?

Another reason is: wouldn't such a theory of everything depend on the basic assumptions programmed into the machine? E.g. what if such an assumption is that numbers are fundamental elements of reality, but this assumption is wrong: what if numbers are actually constructed out of more fundamental elements of reality? How would such a machine transcend its basic assumptions?

I hope I have the time to read your essay, e.g. the bit about the "universal Schrodinger equation", soon.

Cheers,

Lorraine

Benjamin Dribus

Dear Lorraine,

Yes, I agree with you about the superhuman machine intelligence... this scenario was intended as a "reducto ad absurdum," but maybe I didn't make that very clear.

I would definitely appreciate any remarks you might have on my essay, since I see that you have an information-theoretic background. But of course I understand that there are a lot of essays to read! Take care,

Ben

Lorraine Ford

Dear hoang cao hai,

Thanks for your comments. I hope I have time to read your essay, which seems to be about the nature of mass.

Best wishes,

Lorraine

Georgina Woodward

Dear Lorraine,

an interesting subject also addressed by some other contest entries. I like the clearway in which it is set out. It will take more time to read it thoroughly and think about everything you have said. I have also taken a look at some of the very interesting discussion it has generated.

I noticed from your biography that you mention a particular interest in reality.With that in mind I would be very grateful if you could take a look at my own essay, which uses an explanatory framework (of reality in the context of physics) to answer the essay question. Developed since last years essay competition. There is a high resolution version of the diagram 1. available in my essay discussion thread. Any thoughts on that or the essay in general would be marvellous. Good luck, Georgina : )

Lorraine Ford

Dear Georgina,

thanks for your comments and good luck wishes. I have previously skimmed through your essay, but I have now printed it out to read in more detail.

Cheers,

Lorraine

« Previous Page Next Page »