Philosophy Now Forum

wtf. This concept can only be understood in terms of non-linear dynamic systems theory which treats time as a fractal dimension rather than a Cartesian one.

Leo said:

"What a crock of shit. I've never heard of anybody who would suggest that the past is physically real. The past is that which WAS physically real but is physically real no longer."

Well now you have heard of someone who is suggesting the past is real. Show me where it says that time makes past events unreal (in fact past events have to be real and we have records - we normally don't make records of unreal events, just the real ones, otherwise we wouldn't bother).

PhilX

PS When I wake up tomorrow, I'll review what Leo and Arising have to say so have a good night.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Well now you have heard of someone who is suggesting the past is real.

What about the future? Is that real as well?

Obvious Leo wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Well now you have heard of someone who is suggesting the past is real.

What about the future? Is that real as well?

Since the future is uncertain, then the question doesn't make sense.

PhilX

I don't think you've ever given these matters very much thought, Phil. A month ago you were e4xpressing your amazement that the universe should conform to one particular suite of laws rather than some other and now you're talking about an uncertain future. Make up your fucking mind, mate. Either the universe conforms to a suite of laws or it doesn't but if it does then the future has been cast in stone since the big bang. As you know I reckon the idea of such things as "laws of physics" is a crock of shit but since you're the one who thinks otherwise then in your world-view the future is not uncertain. You're living Laplace's nightmare.

Obvious Leo wrote: In a programmed (or law-mandated) reality the arrow of entropy should be going the other way.

My point exactly. You just agreed that the universe is likely NOT a UTM. Why do you say it is? If you know what a Turing machine is, it's clear that the universe isn't one. Why do you claim the opposite?

Obvious Leo wrote:wtf. This concept can only be understood in terms of non-linear dynamic systems theory which treats time as a fractal dimension rather than a Cartesian one.

Simple words for a humble dabbler like myself, please. The meaning of a Turing machine is extremely well understood. It has nothing to do with "fractal dimensions" and nonlinear dynamic systems. If you can explain yourself, please do. You claim the universe is a Turing machine then you say it isn't, but then again it is, but only in a fractal dimension in nonlinear dynamics. That's word salad. Can you explain what you mean?

Obvious Leo wrote:I don't think you've ever given these matters very much thought, Phil. A month ago you were e4xpressing your amazement that the universe should conform to one particular suite of laws rather than some other and now you're talking about an uncertain future. Make up your fucking mind, mate. Either the universe conforms to a suite of laws or it doesn't but if it does then the future has been cast in stone since the big bang. As you know I reckon the idea of such things as "laws of physics" is a crock of shit but since you're the one who thinks otherwise then in your world-view the future is not uncertain. You're living Laplace's nightmare.

Since QM says that there is a probability for each scenario of our universe, then it becomes a matter as to which scenario may be the right one or the reality. So QM would say there is a future reality, but won't say exactly what it is. So it's a probability question (and not just for the subatomic world as scientists are currently saying this applies to the macroscopic world too).

In that thread I was talking about how the constants came to take on the values to make our universe work the way it does? This isn't just about me making up my mind as this is the mainstream view of scientists. It still seems like a miracle that things have worked out the way they have and there are holes or gaps in our knowledge in those areas. But it seems you can't make up your fucking mind whether our universe is real or not. I suggest you listen to yourself as you talk.

PhilX

wtf wrote:
My point exactly. You just agreed that the universe is likely NOT a UTM. Why do you say it is? If you know what a Turing machine is, it's clear that the universe isn't one. Why do you claim the opposite?

I'm not talking about a Turing machine. I'm talking about a Universal Turing machine. These are entirely different theoretical constructs. Explaining the difference here lies well beyond the scope of this topic but there is ample literature available in the public domain.

wtf wrote: It has nothing to do with "fractal dimensions" and nonlinear dynamic systems.

Universal Turing machines evolve from the simple to the complex. Only non-linear dynamic systems are capable of doing this and non-linear dynamic systems can only be modelled in a topological space, i.e. a fractal dimension.

Interestingly Henri Poincare had figured this out before non-linear dynamic systems theory had even been invented and it was on these grounds that he emphatically rejected the Minkowski modelling of SR. He knew fucking well that modelling time as a Cartesian spatial dimension was bullshit because Cartesian dimensions are bi-directional where time is self-evidently not. Not only are fractal dimensions uni-directional their arrow of entropy goes from high to low. Rather than processing information the UTM generates it.

Obvious Leo wrote:

wtf wrote:
My point exactly. You just agreed that the universe is likely NOT a UTM. Why do you say it is? If you know what a Turing machine is, it's clear that the universe isn't one. Why do you claim the opposite?

I'm not talking about a Turing machine. I'm talking about a Universal Turing machine. These are entirely different theoretical constructs. Explaining the difference here lies well beyond the scope of this topic but there is ample literature available in the public domain.

wtf wrote: It has nothing to do with "fractal dimensions" and nonlinear dynamic systems.

Universal Turing machines evolve from the simple to the complex. Only non-linear dynamic systems are capable of doing this and non-linear dynamic systems can only be modelled in a topological space, i.e. a fractal dimension.

Interestingly Henri Poincare had figured this out before non-linear dynamic systems theory had even been invented and it was on these grounds that he emphatically rejected the Minkowski modelling of SR. He knew fucking well that modelling time as a Cartesian spatial dimension was bullshit because Cartesian dimensions are bi-directional where time is self-evidently not. Not only are fractal dimensions uni-directional their arrow of entropy goes from high to low. Rather than processing information the UTM generates it.

I was very impressed with your erudition and insight in a recent thread about descriptive versus explanatory science. I must say I think you're full of baloney here. I know what a UTM is. A topological space is not the same thing as a fractal dimension. The rest of what you wrote is similarly off target. I know what Poincare did. This simply has nothing to do with UTMs and you certainly have not made a case that the universe is a UTM.

I know you're a serious person. Why don't you read this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Turing_machine. Perhaps you're thinking of something else. A UTM is just a TM that instead of having a program that operates on input, reads both the program and the input, thereby emulating any specific TM. In other words, a UTM is an abstract model of a general purpose computer, like the laptop on which I'm typing right now. If I fire up my browser, it surfs the web. If I fire up my text editor, it lets me write words. That's all a UTM is. This is not a model of the universe.

Are we talking about the same thing here? There's nothing about nonlinear dynamics, topological spaces, fractal dimensions, or the work of Poincare involved in this at all. If I'm wrong, I'd be very glad to have some references to what you are talking about.

wtf wrote: I'm always puzzled when otherwise sane people believe that the universe is a computation. .
.

I'm not sure if sanity comes into it nor whether it's true or not but my philosophical take is that it may be a useful mental shift or metaphor that produces new ways of thinking about things as this does appear to have happened in the past. So when steam and hydrolics were invented everything became fluids and pressure, electricity brought it's own metaphors to the outside world as did Relativity and lately Evolution. So maybe this metaphor will produce some interesting results and it does tie to the idea that appears to be around that information could be considered a 'substance'. Or maybe it just demonstrates how powerful the ideas of science have become in influencing the way we view things in society. For myself,
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=8524&hilit=emulation

Arising_uk wrote:

wtf wrote: I'm always puzzled when otherwise sane people believe that the universe is a computation. .
.

I'm not sure if sanity comes into it nor whether it's true or not but my philosophical take is that it may be a useful mental shift or metaphor that produces new ways of thinking about things as this does appear to have happened in the past. So when steam and hydrolics were invented everything became fluids and pressure, electricity brought it's own metaphors to the outside world as did Relativity and lately Evolution. So maybe this metaphor will produce some interesting results and it does tie to the idea that appears to be around that information could be considered a 'substance'. Or maybe it just demonstrates how powerful the ideas of science have become in influencing the way we view things in society. For myself,
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=8524&hilit=emulation

Another popular theory is that the universe is a hologram. Here's a Wiki article that relates to that idea:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle

PhilX

This 12/28/2015 article explains the immediate implications to Google's D-Wave 2x quantum computer:

http://www.ticotimes.net/2015/12/28/why ... -arms-race:

"...the immediate applications for Google’s quantum computer are a class of A.I. problems generally referred to as optimization problems. Imagine NASA being able to use quantum computers to optimize the flight trajectories of interstellar space missions, FedEx being able to optimize its delivery fleet of trucks and planes, an airport being able to optimize its air-traffic control grid, the military being able to crack any encryption code, or a Big Pharma company being able to optimize its search for a breakthrough new drug."

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote: Since QM says that there is a probability for each scenario of our universe, then it becomes a matter as to which scenario may be the right one or the reality. ...

Maybe not as Schmidhuber appeared to show that there is a short algorithm that could compute all possible realities, so Laplace it is and the only reason we think this the 'right' one is because this is the one we are in.

Funny how you appeal to mainstream physicists and yet dislike mainstream biologists?

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
Another popular theory is that the universe is a hologram. Here's a Wiki article that relates to that idea:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle

PhilX

A computational hologram.

There may be a CMB moment coming with experiments from the gravity wave detector mob as they have some 'noise' that could be evidence of a prediction about the universe being a holograph.

Arising_uk wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote: Since QM says that there is a probability for each scenario of our universe, then it becomes a matter as to which scenario may be the right one or the reality. ...

Maybe not as Schmidhuber appeared to show that there is a short algorithm that could compute all possible realities, so Laplace it is and the only reason we think this the 'right' one is because this is the one we are in.

Funny how you appeal to mainstream physicists and yet dislike mainstream biologists?

Not a dislike for biology; just a strong interest in physics and cosmology (blame it on TV and Flipboard as they focus on physics and cosmology).

PhilX