Essay Abstract

We were once asked about the nature of time and about the limits of physics. Now are being asked whether reality is digital or analog. We kids are out to play and we have a new toy concept to entertain ourselves with. Following the sequence of questions, in this essay we see the universe as a great computer that shows reality to everyone and to everything, and especially to physicists. Just like our Play-Station 3 TM. This way we find some of the limits of physics and try to explain how reality works. Now, is this universe-computer digital or analog? Is the reality it shows digital or analog? Follow on and let's see... WARNING: This essay tries to be cool. It is serious on the concepts exposed but it was fun to be written and tries to be fun to be read. So, with a little irreverence, definitions used are not necessarily standard outside of this essay. Also, it follows some of the same ideas of my other essay about the limits of physics: http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/524. If you didn't like that one, you should not read this one or vice-versa.

Author Bio

Juan E. Ramos Beraud: Bachelor in science studies on Mathematics (UNAM). Studies on Machine Structure (UC Berkeley). General Director and V.P. of Technology of S&C Constructores de Sistemas a (300 employee IT company). Husband. Father of three. Marathon runner. Friend of my friends.

Download Essay PDF File

18 days later

  • [deleted]

  • Post #2

Juan,

This essay was different and fun. You assume the universe is a computer and go from there, which is bold and different.

On a totally different note - I don't know how people come up with their references. Before posting my essay, I looked and saw others had a reference page, so I looked around my home office for books to put on my reference page. My essay was at first rejected because my references were not on a separate page. This worried me, because someone might figure out I just grabbed them at the last minute. I see you reference page and four of the five are Wikipedia. This was once again a bold and different move.

Jeff

    Hola Juan. Interesting and fun paper to read.

    You said "Space-time doesn't exist by itself and gravity neither. Space-time and gravity exist only when two or more things interact. The things that interact are either material or electromagnetic." I totally agree with you. This statement summarizes a large part of my earlier 2005 Beautiful Universe theory on which my present fqxi paper is based! Best wishes,

    Vladimir

      Jeffrey:

      Thanks for the comment, I hope you enjoyed my essay, as I enjoyed yours, which I just read. (I'll place a comment there).

      To me, a computer is just a pice of hardware that is predictable -and some times programable-, so if we will ever understand our universe is because it is a computer.

      As you can see on my resume, I am not a full time scientist, I just enjoy math and physics. This essay is important for me because it was written with the time I usually dedicate to my family and friends.

      When I write, it is important for me how the words of the essay sound and how they look on paper, so the references came in the process of writing because my ideas were not coming nicely on paper (you should know, my mother language is not english) so I helped my self a little with google and wikipedia, so I felt I should recognize the help with the references.

      Aagain, thanks for the comment.

      Regards

      Vladimir:

      Thanks for the comment.

      I will continue doing some research on how to define some basic automata which relate to particles from which quantum mechanics and relativity emerge. Your Beautiful Universe proposal is one of the things I should study. There is also several interesting approaches presented in this essay contest like the ones by Ken Matusow and Tommaso Bolognesi.

      I've read your essay and it is very interesting and well written. I will comment later on your thread. In the mean time I will rate it.

      Jaun

      Exceptionally cool!

      One small point I think I may be able to help with, you ask;

      "But, how do space-time and gravity exist in Reality?"

      Luckily the answer to that's in my essay. I think you may have the dynamic conceptual vision to see it, (we're now down to around 1 in 4 who can). See the strings for the moving buses etc. and see Ragazas cool maths too, and both consistent with top essay Edwin's Cfield.

      Is your computer universally recyclable? Mine is; Once you've given me a top score you may wish to also enjoy going on to;

      http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0016

      Cool means points

      Stay cool. Best wishes

      Peter

        • [deleted]

        • Post #7

        Peter:

        You´ve got your points. (all of them, because I really liked your essay).

        And tell your friends, no one has gotten poor by asking. We still have 4 days.

        I´ll visit your http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0016 page.

        Juan,

        I very much enjoyed your essay, and can see your UC Berkeley studies in Machine Structure play into it. I also have a background in machine architecture and have recently published The Automatic Theory of Physics which shows that all axiomatized physical theories can be mapped into automata or state machines. [Two earlier books, Microprocessor Systems Design Vol I and II are also at that link.]

        But I would ask you to consider the possibility that gravity is a 'field' which can effectively 'define' space-time. The point then is that you state: "Space-time and gravity exist only when two or more things interact. The things that interact are either material or electromagnetic." But if gravity is a field, then, per Maxwell, it has energy, and, per Einstein, energy has mass, and so the field can potentially interact with itself. This would seem to generalize your statement by considering the mass of the gravity field as 'matter' or, as I show in my essay, as able to 'condense' to matter.

        In your abstract you ask: "Now, is this universe-computer digital or analog?"

        You say: "To me, a computer is just a piece of hardware that is predictable -and some times programable-, so if we will ever understand our universe is because it is a computer." But as I am probably older than you, I began my computer design studies when analog machines were still economically feasible for some applications. So I would like to ask you to consider that a 'field' that interacts with itself can be considered to be an Analog Computer, whose execution effectively establishes the 'laws of physics'. Remember that analog computers are essentially 'programmed' by connectivity, not by machine code, so the 'algorithms' are connectivity, not ones and zeros.

        Anyway, I would like to ask that you look at my essay from this perspective, that is compatible with your view, if you allow the possibility of analog computing. You need not agree with everything, but if you like it, then I'll follow the advice you gave Peter in the previous comment and ask for your vote, since the days are numbered and the number is shrinking.

        Thanks for your consideration.

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Edwin:

          Thanks for the comment on my essay.

          I read you essay early when you sent it, while I was writing my essay. I was dealing with expressing my idea that when we classify things they become digital. (digital is something that can be expressed with digits) Your essay title and first diagram were very enlightening. So when I first rated some essays, I thought yours was one that deserved consideration (and a lot of points):

          So, in that sence you already got all I can give:

          "You rated this essay on Mar 11, 2011. If you have any questions, please contact FQXi. "

          My position about the essay question: is reality digital or analog? Can be summarized this way:

          Reality is what we perceive of the universe, and universe is what it is. When we understand things they become digital. As you say "analog in - digital out".

          The rest of my essay is pure speculation.

          In this essay contest I have read several positions on which is the basic component of universe.

          You say it is a field. Others identify it with space-time. Others identify it as a stochastic process, etcetera. Well, I say it's a particle.

          My background forces me to be near to algorithms and computation complexity. I still do some programing in java(image processing) and most of the work on my essay and this comment were done on my iPhone at night, while my wife is sleeping. So this little touch keyboard makes me condense my thought in to little writing.

          Have fun

          Juan

          (to everyone: the offer is still in place)

          Juan,

          Thanks for your gracious remarks and for the early vote.

          And thanks for considering that the universe, if it computes anything, may be an analog computer, based on connectivity rather than 'stored program code'.

          As you point out, there's certainly no shortage of ideas as to what is the basic component of the universe.

          I also recall that your previous essay was concerned with consciousness, and was written with a light style and some humor. My essay in that contest was also on consciousness and complements this essay.

          So thanks again Juan, for the vote, the comment, and your participation in fqxi.

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

          14 days later

          Thank you Juan, and sorry for the delay to respond. The fqxi forum lacks a member 'tracking' page that allows us to see a chronological list of new comments, and easily knowing when a new comment has been added.

          I wonder if you read the full Beautiful Universe paper or just the short summary of it on the fqxi essay. In either case I appreciate your feedback. My ideas need simulation to demonstrate some aspects that now only reside in my head :) Since the theory is local and causal, simulation should have maximal economy.

          Best wishes from Vladimir

          Write a Reply...