I will add that no one gets anything out of nothing, not even physicists. Anything that is possible whether in computers of in the Universe is possible because it was provided for right from the beginning. Computer proograms can never give us anything more than what the programmer allowed for.
James
Sorry, 'of' means 'or'. And, 'oo' means 'o'. My point is that you will not be permitted to assume anything for free. Some theoretical physicists pretend that there is a chance for something from nothing; but, You must show origins. How and where do you interject meaning into your program for the universe?
James
James,
You may be reading too many essays at the same time, or not reading careful. When you say "What is the empirical evidence to support the idea of space and/or time can be divided into pieces?" There is no such evidence, it is just the common definition of analog. But in any case, I'm not supporting the analog worldview, but the digital one.
Also notice that the choice of subtitles does not replace the content of the sections. What you may take as an ideological genesis is only the account of the best theory we have today to explain the origin of the universe, that is the theory of the Big Bang that I use merely as a mean to explain how an informational view may explain how we came from a state where nothing existed (the singularity) or where everything was in a state of perfect chaos (the first seconds of the universe) to the state in which today we find highly structured things (including human beings).
My main contribution, I think, is that I'm precisely trying to avoid assuming anything, other than perhaps a few points which most scientists would agree. Such as the treatment of complexity, randomness, structure, and basic theory of information and computation.
Thanks for your comments.
James,
I may not share the conclusions of your worldview or your new physics theory but I see you advocate for 'all theory should be reducible to empirical properties' which I think is consonant with my worldview, that is that if we want to say how the universe looks like we should find scientific evidence in favor or contravention of it. In my case, I'm looking at the distribution of patterns in empirical data in the real world and comparing them to the distribution of patterns that a purely algorithmic (intrinsically digital) theory would predict. Then I draw some conclusions concerning how things seem to unfold in the universe versus how it should unfold if it were digital, and discuss the results.
Sincerely.
Hello Dr. Zenil,
Thanks for the information.
Chaitin seeks to use AIT to establish irreducible mathematical truths. In my essay I establish irreducible physical truths ('the Light' and 'Equivalence Identity') using Physics. You may care to read my essay when you get a chance.
All the best,
Robert
Dear Dr. Hector Zenil,
"You may be reading too many essays at the same time, or not reading careful. When you say "What is the empirical evidence to support the idea of space and/or time can be divided into pieces?" There is no such evidence, it is just the common definition of analog. But in any case, I'm not supporting the analog worldview, but the digital one."
You may be correct about too many essays. However, I argue for the analogue view. In that view, I do not see any division into parts other than for the purposes of computer type calculations. I know there is no such evidence. I do not know that it is the common definition of analogue. For me analogue is natural continuity.
"In my case, I'm looking at the distribution of patterns in empirical data in the real world and comparing them to the distribution of patterns that a purely algorithmic (intrinsically digital) theory would predict. Then I draw some conclusions concerning how things seem to unfold in the universe versus how it should unfold if it were digital, and discuss the results."
This I understood. What I did not understand was how this academic exercise relates to the real world. The fact that the real world allows for the design and building of computers does not, in my opinion, demonstrate that the reverse can be true. The universe is not a digital computer. The reason that I know this is because the universe does not rely upon code. It relies upon directness without substitute. Substitution is our approximation for reality.
James
Leaving aside whatever my theoretical point of view is: Is your position that "Symmetry breaking of less or no information leads to increased information?"
James
Sure Robert. Thanks again.
Dear James,
What would be the metric here? I think it may be a tricky question. Take Bennett's logic depth and the obvious answer is that the complexity of the world (which you may want to match with 'amount of information') obviously increases, it couldn't be otherwise. But it all depends on the definition of information, if you are matching information with matter/energy my answer may or may not contradict thermodynamics (but note that the current theory of the universe also contradicts thermodynamics at the point where the physical laws we know does not longer apply). If it is Shannon information it may be misleading because Shannon's entropy inherits the caveats of probability (that is that one cannot talk about the information content of individual objects, nor meaning associated to information) but it may leave thermodynamics laws intact. While in algorithmic information one can define individual information content and characterize lack of meaning as random or trivial (i.e. as carrying very little or no information). In this case, I think information has evolved from an early state (when the universe was so dense that everything looked random) into the current more organized forms that we see today (e.g. it is almost certain that in the early universe there was no life, because it seems life requires a long computing period to emerge). So my first answer would be that the process of symmetry breaking actually creates but also also destroys information.
Concerning the typical definition of analog, I find your view interesting and I agree with you that there are certainly different ways to conceive an analog world. From general relativity (GR), for example, it is matter who has to cover a continuum (otherwise GR seems to collapse into classical mechanics) and as such even if one may not be able to divide matter the exercise is to think that relativity theory somehow implies that matter is infinitely divisible (a way to say that it cover a continuum). But if that wouldn't really be the case (that one can think of matter as infinitely divisible) I wonder whether this matter wouldn't actually be better described as being discrete. But if what you conceive to be continuum is an abstract conception of space as an indivisible entity that may be another legitimate definition of analog world.
And that is one of my points, the fact that one cannot even agree on what an analog world may be, while the digital view is basically crystal clear (in a digital world computational power is also well defined). You are right when saying that proving that something resembles to something else doesn't rule out other possibilities. Unfortunately (for the analog worldview supporters I think) we have been incredibly successful modeling the world with digital approaches, while we don't seem to be sure how to really tackle the question or even compare our world to whatever an analog world may mean. My argument is why would someone believe that something is what doesn't look to be rather that what it looks to be. And when I say 'look' I mean something more than only the semantic of the word, because I try to scientifically quantify how much the world looks like an algorithmic (digital) one, and the methodology is described in the essay with references to some of my papers.
Thanks.
Nikman,
I just want to add something to Hector's point that just because we don't have an algorithm for protein folding, doesn't mean that such an algorithm is impossible.
My personal opinion is that for all structures whose final state is certain (whether a folded protein or e.g. a completed jigsaw puzzle) a polynomial time -- and even strongly polynomial time -- solution is either a function of algorithmic complexity or the result of a random process, exactly as Hector has it. It seems unlikely that the protein folding process is random -- for the reason that a wrongly folded protein causes disease. Given the robustness of nature as a whole, a random folding to the left instead of the right should not make a difference to the system. However, since the system _is_ senstively dependent on the correct configuration, one reasons that the subsystem in turn depends on information feedback from the system. Complex systems research is a very exciting and relatively new discipline; I for one am hopeful that Hector's research gets the professional attention it deserves.
Tom
Hi Tom,
I am preparing a response to Hector's very helpful reply. I will respond to your remark:
"My personal opinion is that for all structures whose final state is certain (whether a folded protein or e.g. a completed jigsaw puzzle) a polynomial time -- and even strongly polynomial time -- solution is either a function of algorithmic complexity or the result of a random process, exactly as Hector has it."
We have opposite views. What I need to know from you is how you explain anything random being a process? What is it that you think random means? Better yet, please let me know how random even has meaning? What is random to you?
James
spherical universal biological turing machine the word of the day.
James,
I don't try to explain it, because I don't have to. There is simply no way _in principle_ that one can distinguish process from reality. We know that a process isn't random when it is algorithmically compressible. Everything else is pseudo-random (even "random" number generators). If the universe is its own algorithm (and it may be)that would be the meaning of "randomness," an algorithmically incompressible process. Because we know that some processes are algorithmic, however, we cannot say that the world is random -- we can only say, as Hector has brilliantly titled his essay, that _either_ the world is algorithmic or it is mostly random.
In any case, science is a rationalist enterprise that is indifferent to personal beliefs. One doesn't assign meaning; meaning is determined in results interpreted by theory.
Tom
Tom,
You can knock off that 'personal beliefs' criticism so long as you hold onto personal beliefs.
"I don't try to explain it, because I don't have to. There is simply no way _in principle_ that one can distinguish process from reality. We know that a process isn't random when it is algorithmically compressible. Everything else is pseudo-random (even "random" number generators). If the universe is its own algorithm (and it may be)that would be the meaning of "randomness," an algorithmically incompressible process. Because we know that some processes are algorithmic, however, we cannot say that the world is random -- we can only say, as Hector has brilliantly titled his essay, that _either_ the world is algorithmic or it is mostly random."
You either explain it or you do not have it. Yes process is reality. We know that process isn't random when we observe meaningful effects. If any process was random we wouldn't even recognize the problem. The reaons is that randomness can only mean meaninglessness. We can say that the world is definitely not random in any way because it continues to make sense. It is orderly. Orderliness results from meaningful control. There is no other kind of order, except in the purely imaginative theories of ideologues, I will respond to Hector separately.
James
James,
YOUR reality is orderly because you believe it to be. Nature is indifferent to your beliefs -- there's a bigger world that doesn't fit into your personal reality. Not because I believe it. But because it's demonstrably so.
Tom
tom,
"YOUR reality is orderly because you believe it to be. Nature is indifferent to your beliefs -- there's a bigger world that doesn't fit into your personal reality. Not because I believe it. But because it's demonstrably so."
Then explain how that is demonstrated; but, please do not include your personal beliefs. By the way, it is obvious that my reality is orderly because you and I are debating about it.
James
Dr. Crowell,
The universe cannot just 'be':
"The universe as a grand computer or quantum computer executes various algorithms, which are quantum bit processors for interacting fields. All of these need to be computable, and have a finite data stack for a standard scattering experiment. So there must be some sort of selection process, a sort of quantum Darwinism, ..."
It needs a power supply and it needs to be programmed.
James
James,
The "debate" is all in your mind. If you actually read Hector's essay, it should be clear to you how order emerges from random events.
Tom
Tom,
No! Either he or you explains "how order emerges from random events." without pretending that saying so makes it so. I asked you what do you understand by the meaning of random? If random has a meaning the it is: No meaning!
James
Again, James, it is you who assigns meaning. Not science.
Tom
