• [deleted]

  • Post #86

Dear Hector:

I liked your essay.

Regarding the last line of your essay, "Our reasoning and empiri-

cal findings suggest that the information in the world is the result of processes resembling computer programs rather than of dynamics characteristic of a more random, or analog, world."

I wonder if "... processes resembling computer programs..." will be eventually be found to be, "energies or intelligences that we currently are unable to understand, but indirect evidence points in that direction?"

Good luck!

joseph markell

    Hector,

    Thank you for the helpful clarification. It makes sense that one can ignore the compiler when comparing program lengths.

    Regards,

    Tom

    • [deleted]

    • Post #88

    Hi Hector, hihihi yes indeed I like laugh....I have cried too much in my young life...thus it's better to smile to life.Hihihi we are surprisings the belgians but we have a good heart , it's the most important, we are braves simply as says Cesar in the past.hhih a little pub for this beautiful small surealist country.

    for the film,no but some friends have seen it, it a very laughing film for them,I am going to see it soon I think, I love films.In fact here in Walloonia, we prefer laughing about our politicians than others things.But at this momment, they must create the government because there that becomes so ironic without government since 260 days...soon we shall be as Iran.The first country without government.The problem is that some people wants separate the country, and the others wan't change or improve their political systems.Thus they rest at their place.Thus you imagine the entrepreneurial mind and the creations of jobs, a catastrophe for walloonia.The youngs become very irritated and angry.They see their parents for example without job and without hope.All is very expansive and the majority is very limited here in monney.The cost of life is too much important and the salaries very weaks.It's really a problem of politic.We aren't numerous in Belgium, 11 millions and 4 millions of walloons.

    Regards

    Steve

    • [deleted]

    • Post #89

    Hector,

    I agree that an analog (undiscretized) world would be "largely incomprehensible" - it would be seen as a super symmetric void with an unbroken symmetry (essentially "the nothing").

    But we evidently have the obvious cosmos (the organized existence) and the less obvious chaos (the unorganized existence). This is the all-encompassing differentiation of reality. There is the differentiated, discretized corporeality and there is the undifferentiated, undiscretized void. There is the one and there is the zero.

    Like the many, I agree with "the notion that the universe is digital" in "the way it unfolds" - because that is the idea of the cosmic or ordered existence. But your sidestep of the foundational question regarding "what the universe is made of" dampens your essay.

    I think the big question regarding the existence includes both the 'what is discretized' and the 'how that is discretized'.

    As for information, it is obvious that people forget what they forget - so, perhaps the all-encompassing existence also forgets in the super-symmetric entropic voidness...

    Hector, perhaps you can also read and rate my essay. It would be interesting to find us together in the essay finals.

    Rafael

      Hector (and James),

      going back to the remark by James -- if the universe is a computer (or, better, a computation), it needs power supply, and needs to be programmed -- I agree with the reply that there is no need to program it for a purpose, and not need to inject information during the computation. A lot of interesting things emerge in computations that are not the result of a purposeful design, and are 'closed', that is, not interacting with the outside, as many experiments have shown.

      But we are left with the question of the 'power supply'. As a supporter of the digital/computational universe conjecture, I like to assume that everything must emerge from the universal computation (i.e., from spacetime): particles, matter, energy, up to life, and whatever else is going to emerge next. But don't we need some sort of energy to keep the computation running, step by step? How do we avoid the circularity of energy requiring energy to exist?

      Perhaps a possible answer would be: we don't need energy to run the Computation because there is no actual, physical, Digital Computer that runs it, in the same way as we do not require power for an Analog Computer to run, say, the Navier-Stokes or Einstein equations, under an analog-based understanding of the universe.

      An alternative answer, along the lines of Tegmark's Mathematical Universe Hypothesis, would be that the Computation does not unfold step by step: it is already all there, time being a sort of illusion (I wonder whether the fact that time and energy are conjugate variables plays a role here).

      In any case, if we insist that the computational steps 'really happen', and that they require some non-null effort, hopefully not from metaphysical entities like angels (after all, angels don't sweat), it would be wise to keep it to the bare minimum. In this respect, a prefix-free universal Turing machine (as suggested by Hector), or a Turmite, or a network mobile automaton (as discussed in my contribution), all based on the operation of a simple, localized control head, are preferable to a cellular automaton, with its global operation mode. (By the way, to my knowledge, the first to push for the localized control head idea in a physical context has been S. Wolfram.)

      Hector, James, what do you think?

      Hector, I added a remark here, but a bit up, in the Crowell-Putnam posts of Feb. 22. In the absence of an automatic notification service, I just wanted to let you know. Tommaso

        Hi Tommaso,

        I had already found your other message. Thanks.

        Yes, it is a pity there is no an automatic notification service. However, on the left column there is a useful 'most recent first' sorting checkbox that I recently found.

        I will answer your other message. Btw, I also wrote you something a week ago or so in your own discussion section concerning the question of taking data and code as different kind of entities, which I argue shouldn't be the case after Turing's work.

        Cheers.

        • [deleted]

        • Post #93

        The power supply of the universe is already given by E = mc^2. Matter, as observation so far informs us, makes up only a tiny portion of what we see but accounts for all of what we measure. Interaction among mass points is the engine of change in particle states. Programming? There is no physical principle that prevents the universe from programming itself, with itself. Nor is there a physical principle that prevents the universe from being its own algorithm and thus entirely random.

        Tom

        Tommaso,

        I think I would need time to think more about it. But indeed, the question of the power supply is a very interesting one. My feeling is that one only needs a first (strong enough) push (e.g. the Big Bang), then symmetry breaking does the rest, and eventually the initial power fades perhaps delimiting a maximal complexity (i.e. distribution of patterns under my algorithmic view).

        For example, take a gas in a room. Thermodynamical stability is not the state in which every particle can remain still (at the same distance of every other) because a motionless state is an unstable configuration. In our reality, it requires more energy to keep everything still than just let things to collide. Now I have to accept that an analog world here would made me think that explains better why that happens, because if the underlying space were something like a grid I could not imagine why particles could not just remain still each in its own discrete cell, but in an analog world I would think that one can more easily explain why the least imperfection would break everything out. But it would suffice to start from a biased initial condition to avoid falling into an analog view to explain this because it is only necessary to explain the first symmetry breaking. At the end, even if in our minds an analog world would more likely explain this instability of particles perfectly uniformly distributed over the room space, I don't see why not one would expect also perfect equilibrium in such an analog world just as it would be the case in the digital to make an unstable motionless configuration a stable one.

        Of course one can ask about the cause of the first symmetry breaking just as one can ask about the cause of the Big Bang and the causes of it's causes. I think at the end we will end up giving up on the first cause simply because either there is a first uncaused cause or because we cannot go indefinitely backwards in time looking always for the cause of the cause. My speculative position in this regard is that there is something because it is not the case that nothing is simpler than something, I think they are equally likely, but if you start with something and run an algorithmic process on it you end up pretty much with a universe looking like the one in which we live today. The first part of this argument is mere speculation but the second part, I argue, is not.

        Thanks.

        I think Tom remark is fair. The question of the power supply can be reformulated thanks to Einstein, to the question of matter supply, that is why there is something rather than nothing, which is the question at which I arrived in my previous post in this thread. As Tom suggests, I think the universe feeds itself of power. What is the origin of the power supply may be therefore tantamount to asking the cause of the Big Bang, and perhaps the best answer today is the same answer that cosmologists provide, we don't (yet) know. The algorithmic view answers, however, much of it from that time on, or at least the question of why there are structure in our universe rather than having remained in the original state.

        Thanks Joseph,

        Actually what you mention is close, I think, to Wolfram's concept of intelligence. In Wolfram's view of intelligence it is a matter of identification rather than of sophistication. This is because of his Principle of Computational Equivalence (PCE). His PCE says that most non-trivial computations turn out to be of equivalent sophistication. That may explain why we are unable to, for example, master the task of weather forecasting, because at the end weather is as sophisticated than us (our minds) and we have no way to shortcut the computation of the weather (despite using supercomputers to forecast at most a couple of days, and often still wrong for the next day). So in Wolfram's view the weather is an intelligent system with which we cannot interact because we are an intelligence of a different type.

        PCE is interesting for artificial intelligence, because it means we are surrounded by intelligence, yet we are trying so hard to create 'intelligent' systems when in fact what we are trying to create is intelligence that we recognize as such, i.e. intelligence of our same type. But the interesting conclusion is that one do not really need to try that hard designing an intelligent system, one can just go an use one of the many around in the computational universe, and then perhaps make it behave as you want (if what you want is to have it to behave like a human being) for which one would only need to have the system somehow to interact with us (and therefore have sensorial experience of the same type).

        Thanks for your comment.

        • [deleted]

        • Post #97

        Dear Hector:

        Thanks for your nice and detailed response. I can meld your ideas with the "portal" in my own essay.

        Good luck!

        Joseph Markell

        • [deleted]

        • Post #98

        I don't want to stray too far off-topic. However, I was reminded by the talk of weather and intelligence, of a few points about the integrity of science that I made on a blog back in 2008 in defense of my friend and collaborator Pat Frank in connection with the global warming debate. The fireworks begin at post number 27.

        Tom

        Dear Hector Zenil,

        You say above that "certain phenomena can be modeled assuming that matter and space exist as a continuum, meaning that matter is continuously distributed over an entire region of space. [but] matter is composed of molecules and atoms, separated by empty space."

        Then you say to Lawrence: "I have difficulties seeing how the world could be digital and analog at the same time, but it might be."

        I argue in my essay that the primordial gravity field is distributed over all space. But the continuous field is not initially composed of molecules and atoms. Maxwell taught fields have energy, and Einstein that energy has mass. Because gravity interacts with mass, it interacts with itself, in Yang-Mills fashion, producing fundamental particles that lead to molecules and atoms.

        These particles are discrete and stable enough to last forever [protons] in a 'low temp' environment, while the 'hi temp' of colliders restores the local mass to the 'field state' as in the 'perfect fluid' seen at RHIC and LHC when heavy ions are collided. Upon re-cooling the field again 'condenses' to stable particles, although not necessarily the same mix as pre-collision.

        This is one way that the world could be analog and digital at the same time, and my essay describes experiments to prove this.

        You also respond to James Putnam by saying that it: "may be as simple as to believe that the universe is just computing itself", then say, "if someone or something ran the universe code,...".

        My essay assumes that only one thing exists [the primordial field] and so evolution of the universe must proceed by self-interaction, which reasonably leads to our current reality. But a continuous field, interacting with itself, is essentially an analog computer.

        If the field itself is a 'real' analog computer, neither 'program code' nor 'digital computer' concepts are required. David Tong states that "no one knows how to formulate a discrete version of the laws of physics," and also that "no one knows how to write down a discrete version of the Standard Model" and so we cannot simulate the known laws of physics on a computer. And as I noted in Brian Whitworth's 'VR' essay, if the "computer" is analog, there need be no "program code" since analog computers may simply be designed via the connections. In that sense analog models are compatible with Tom Ray's remark that E=mc^2 'powers' this universe.

        Tommaso Bolognesi seems to agree when he states that "Perhaps ... there is no actual, physical, Digital Computer that runs it, in the same way as we do not require power for an Analog Computer to run, say, the Navier-Stokes or Einstein equations, under an analog-based understanding of the universe."

        The field equations are analog and the field itself is the actual physical 'analog computer' that 'executes' the 'code' for our universe. I can see how those concerned with simulating reality on a digital computer might be concerned with 'algorithmic processes', but I don't believe that the idea of replacing a real analog computer [field] capable of explaining today's reality with an imagined 'digital computer' that exists in some other dimension, if not some other world, is a step forward.

        Nevertheless, you have written a very interesting essay.

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

          • [deleted]

          • Post #100

          Tommaso: "...going back to the remark by James -- if the universe is a computer (or, better, a computation), it needs power supply, and needs to be programmed -- I agree with the reply that there is no need to program it for a purpose, and not need to inject information during the computation. A lot of interesting things emerge in computations that are not the result of a purposeful design, and are 'closed', that is, not interacting with the outside, as many experiments have shown."

          There is always a purpose. That purpose may not be a specific end result. However, the result was a part of purpose. In other words, everything that can possibly occur as a result of the properties of the universe was already potentially possible. Any equations that correctly model the universe already contain all possible outcomes. Nothing is added after the beginning. The origin of the universe had to have all possible outcomes included in its properties at the time of its origin. No latter miracles can be permitted. The concept of unpredictibility cannot stand for sneaking in latter miracles. So far as I know there is no true unpredictibility and no true randomness. Even those computations that involve results for which we cannot make specific individual predictions are always enveloped in some form of control. The end result is that they perform useful purpose for which we can assign meaning.

          Tom: "The power supply of the universe is already given by E = mc^2. Matter, as observation so far informs us, makes up only a tiny portion of what we see but accounts for all of what we measure. Interaction among mass points is the engine of change in particle states. Programming? There is no physical principle that prevents the universe from programming itself, with itself. Nor is there a physical principle that prevents the universe from being its own algorithm and thus entirely random."

          This is an argument in favor of something coming from nothing because nothing is really something. When I speak of nothing I do not mean something. By nothing I mean the completely inexplicable beginning of something.

          Hector: "...the second may be as simple as to believe that the universe is just computing itself, and sometimes we make it compute for ourselves (computers at the end are part of the universe, and when we compute with them we ask the universe to compute something for us)."

          Yes the universe computes itself. I see no reason to look for strings being pulled to manipulate it. There is no need for intervention. The beginning set all in motion. Any programming for any effect that has occurred or can occur was already in existence after the origin of the universe. It would be very interesting to know where that original programming came from; however, we don't have that information by scientific means. I would not refer to it as programming. I see it as the consequence of natural properties fully controlled and operating in a cooperative meaingful manner from which it cannot deviate. Nothing gets added after the origin. Everything gets explained by connecting it back to the origin.

          Hector: "On the other hand, if someone or something ran the universe code, the algorithmic view tells how this was, if necessarily, only at the very beginning, because the structure one finds today all over the universe is neither the result of chance nor the result of design, but can be explained by computation without having to think that there is a purpose, nor to have someone to intervene at every step to get to where it is today. This worldview claims that the universe outcome is the result of computation in which the theory of algorithmic probability explains and predicts the distribution of random-looking and organized structures."

          Well, I won't try to argue the details of algorithmic probability. However, if it in any way implies that some detail or meaning that is part of the universe was added on after the origin of the universe, then I see this as possibly being one of those theoretical fogs that get introduced in order to suggest that the answer lies just beyond our reach in some odd complexity which we can't quite explain.

          James

          Hi James,

          Then I think we agree. Algorithmic probability is not magic, although it has been called a 'miraculous distribution' before by Kirchherr, Li and Vianyi:

          The Miraculous Universal Distribution

          http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.120.2873&rep=rep1&type=pdf

          And my own papers (in joint with Jean-Paul Delahaye) on the same subject, related to this essay:

          Numerical Evaluation of Algorithmic Complexity for Short Strings: A Glance into the Innermost Structure of Randomness (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1101.4795)

          and

          On the Algorithmic Nature of the World (http://arxiv.org/pdf/0906.3554)

          Levin's distribution establishes that 'simple' hypotheses - the ones you favor under Occam's razor - are precisely those with small complexity. My work shows that Levin's distribution is not only a prior but it behaves as one would expect when one actually run the experiments, and even more surprising, it seems to fit (from weak to strong correlation significance) empirical datasets from the real world.

          Best

          • [deleted]

          • Post #102

          Hector,

          Thank you for those references. I need to be knowledgeable about this subject.

          James

          Dear Hector

          I congratulate you on very good essay, though disagree with many of your fundamental tenets.

          From your cv I quite understand your view that; "Physical laws, like computer programs, make things happen." I object on the basis that such 'entities' are not physically causal and can only propagate the non causal. They can do much of value, describe, predict, cause switches to throw and much more, but I feel it endangers our understanding of causality to claim to much.

          Surely "Structure from randomness BY iterated computation" is a bounded view. Is it not enough to claim to just 'explain' some structure from randomness, aided by computation?

          On causality I have found clearly and proposed that the apparent lack of quantum causality is only due to our lack of understanding. As Einstein said, we don't yet understand 1,000th of 1%..." Is it not arrogant to assume we know and understand, and that we can can judge it on those basis.?

          I feel you have cart before horse in saying information 'makes' a cup a cup and a human a human'. I'm even tempted to suggest you may have spent too much time playing at computers in your youth! Yet I do understand what I hope you mean, a very 'catholic' translation of 'makes'. As a supporter of reality (and of Edwins view above) I'd strongly wish to preserve the real meaning of 'makes'.

          And I do see your "matter and space exist as a continuum" differently to Edwin and applaud the view I see. I have derived and find it empirically consistent that in particle terms the discrete condenses from the (sub 'matter') continuum to implement 'change'. Indeed this goes far enough to resolve both SR and GR with QM, consistent with Edwin's and other good essays here. I'd be very pleased if you'd give your views on my essay, but warn you may be shocked by it's naive reality/ locality empiricism, perhaps in another universe to yours. (Though the discrete field model involved logically derives recycled sequential not parallel universes. - yet would you believe my own search beyond maths turned out to be on the same grounds Alice in Wonderland was written!?)

          Through all this I am pleased to agree as an essay it deserves a front runner status, and enjoyed an entirely different viewpoint on nature to my own.

          Best wishes

          Peter Jackson

            Hector nice essay.

            From an artistic perspective, I view the behavior of the universe as a reproductive system. Interesting enough, if you view a reproductive system as a set of random events, or you view it as a predictable (algorithmic) set of events, the resulting distribution is pretty much the same in either case.

            That is the link to the Fibonnaci series I elude to in my essay. Check it out if you get a chance at http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/893.

            Good Luck

            Pete