Slashdot Mirror
Is the Universe its own Largest Computer?
missingmatterboy writes: "If the universe is simply a giant calculating machine, how big is it? Seth Lloyd, who two years ago worked out the theoretical maximum possible power a laptop computer could posess, has now "estimated how much information the Universe can contain, and how many calculations it has performed since the Big Bang." His conclusion: you'd need about 10^90 bits, with something like 10^120 manipulations of those bits, to express the universe since time began."
...42!
Infuriate left and right
wouldn't the calculation of it just add to the total number of calculations that the universe has made?
Those who can, do. Those who can't, go into business for themselves.
I guess the fact we don't have weekly big-bangs indicates the universe doesn't run a certain OS out of Redmond :)
UNIX *is* user-friendly. Its just more selective on who its friends are. --Scott Adams
I only got 10^90 - 1 bits and 10^120 -2 calculations.
Back to the drawing board..
Best Windows Freeware
CPUs always do something, even if it's just look for something to do when "idle". Unless it uses the STOP / WAIT instruction to wait for something to wake it up. Maybe that's what the big bang was...
Infuriate left and right
If one plans on estimating the calculations (apparently changes) the universe has performed, how can you even make a guess when we still don't even know precisely how old the universe is, and how much matter there is?
And also, why does everything have to be made into a computer of some sort? DNA, and now the whole universe?
WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
The Universe is not the Universe's largest calculator. That title belongs to Earth. Everybody knows that who has read the Hitchhiker's Guide.
What is 8 times 7?
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
Like many of the other socially handicapped computer geeks here on slashdork, I was excited about this whole concept. The Universe as a giant computer is an extremely cool idea, IMO.
But then I reconsidered. After all, if the whole galactical starscape that spreads before us as we gaze into the night sky is in the end a really gigantor computer, then, well, the Athlon by my desk starts to look pretty puny.
All of a sudden, when faced with the sheer computatorial power represented by the glorious heavens above, things like "operating system," "information superhighway," and "porn" start to stop meaning so much.
In a world where we're all part of a gigantical computer, who gives a shooting starfuck about Linux?
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
...if the universe has performed 10^120 operations and it's about 20 billion years old, it's running at about 4*10^90 gigahertz. Imagine a Beowulf cluster of those!
The article implies there hasn't been enough time for each bit/particle in the universe to have been "flipped" more than once, which further implies that the universe is NOT a computer. However, the number of particles mentioned is that in out 3D/4D (space / spacetime) universe. With superstring theory postulating extra dimensions up to 10 or 11 all "curled up" out of our sight, maybe this is where extra particles/bits are located to support the universe as a computer?
I want a beowulf cluster of those.
that information was already obsolete at press-time, given continual universal expansion.
Liora
In refence to using "pings" to perform calculations, and using the game of life to generate prime numbers...
it would be neat if we could use the universe as a copmuter to play a huge interactive game like The Sims.
Maybe one day.
-... ---
Wonder if I can file a patent on it and make everyone pay me licensing fees for existing.
Bullshit. Explain to me how the Universe is the "Largest Computer".
Well, I use the Earth's rotation compared to the sun and make choronological estimates as to when it's lunch time.
"Derp de derp."
That would explain too why evolution takes millions of year... though it would explain too why it simply works.
A message from the system administrator: 'I've upped my priority. Now up yours.'
It runs unix.
So... there are only 10^10 bits of unique information to be bookkept for every elementary particle? I find this intuitively inadequte. The precision needed just for locating the particle in the vastness of the universe is immense. Not to mention derivatives of this value wrt time...
Of course, we could see a lot more improvement if we used quantum computing.
Oh, wait - that's already been done! We're part of it.
I can see the fnords!
(18 months per double; 10^120 =~= 2^399; 1.5 years * 399 = 598.5 years)
--- Jason Olshefsky
Karma: Poser (mostly affected by adding this line long after everyone else did)
Then again, I'm hardly a cosmologist, so YMMV.
Mike
I wish that article had given more detail. It seems to me that things like motion and time would not be able to accuratly be coverted into a digital representation and still be accurate enough to represent the entire universe. Wouldn't you have to calculate it with a vector based system? If he wasn't using a vector system then that number 10^90 or whatever it was would probably be significantly smaller.
So if we are currently a part of a giant algorithym, if we ever actually create a computer capable of simulating the whole thing, would the first person to do it be able to patent it? Also, in order to figure out what happened at creation you would have to reverse engenier the whole thing. Wouldn't that be a DCMA violation?
Sigs are out of style, so I'm not going to use one...oh wait..
This is my sarcastic way of saying I don't understand what the $%^@! this guy is trying to sell us by saying the universe is a computer.
:-)
Support contracts ?
morcego
And also, why does everything have to be made into a computer of some sort?
Maybe because its so much easier to think about God as a fellow programmer?
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
How many FPS can you get on this computer while playing Counter Strike or Doom 3?
I guess 256 bits of encryption (where each possible combination results in a strong key) will never be brute-forced, then.
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
But how fast is it?
...with something like 10^120 manipulations of those bits...
Let's see, the universe is about 15 billion years old. 10^120 floating point operations divided by..mumble..mumble..mumble.. That comes out as roughly 2 * 10^101 flops. If the graphics resolution is about... PI multiplied by 15 billion light years by..mumble..mumble..OH WAIT, it's in 3D..mumble..mumble..HEUREKA!
The graphics performance comes out as EXACTLY 42 FPS.
Hmm. Not too impressive, really.
"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them." -- George H. W. Bush
With calculating power like that, you /might/ be able to run Doom III at the highest settigs ;)
Colin Davis
According to some theories, the universe is an 11 dimensional finite state machine with a cycle time of 1x10-63second ... Plankt time.
It would seem to be guided by an irrational number calculation something very much like Mandlebrot's x=1/xi but in 11 dimensions.
A VERY simple calculation with chaotic consequences.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
"Really? I just glance at my watch. "
:oP
Sorry, I forgot there's a segment of the Slashdot population that's adverse to going outside once in a while.
"Derp de derp."
It does crash every week, you just don't realize it because you're in the ram.
God sets everything up over 6 days, gets it perfect, takes a break, and BAM, crash.
Unless, of course, it was all instigated by one intelligent being; Possible but unlikely.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
sometimes it seems like it must be a beta relase
I Heart Sorting Networks
2. ...the rapid expansion phase at the beginning was someone trying to overclock the universe?
3. ...the big crunch comes when MS figures out how to write software for the univsersal computer?
4. ... the CPU manufacturers are right around the corner to making a computer more powerful than universe.
5. ...all the weird stuff at the quantum scale is caused by dereferencing a NULL pointer.
Iaamoac
One idea that's been floating around in my head for years is that someone should get a supercomputer (or a big Beowulf cluster) and try to run their own sim-universe.
Of course, it'd have to have simplified rules (we don't yet know all the rules to out own universe), and it'd probably have to be with a smaller number of bits (quarks?). But I wonder what kind of results we could get. It'd probably take a bit of tweaking to get the physical laws set up right so that stars form and function, or maybe even planets form (at least gas giants).
Is this project too big to even think about right now?
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
universe = 10^90 bits
Therefore, the entire universe can be found at Google.
d, disappointed that "googol" is not spelled "google".
p.s. the word has now lost all meaning to me. google google google. nothing.
www.HearMySoulSpeak.com
So since i am part and even this message is part of its computations it doesnt really matter what i do, maybe i should buy a gun and kill some people..
Damn people who say crap like this should be shot, cause they only point out how non important our lives really are.
Hope these words get used correct in the computation and that they are not some syntax errors.
The universe could have been created by a controlled explosion where a matter/antimatter universe pair were created simultaniously, perhaps with a controlled beginning. Black holes could be used as output devices, spitting out vast streams of data that a higher intellegence could be collecting and analyzing.
:)
But what kind of program? Perhaps its something as trivial as a complex "Game of Life" scenario. Perhaps the universe itself is trivial in the grand scheme of things. Perhaps it represents a single CPU in a vast SMP system of trillions upon Trillions of other processors. Imagine the framerate on THAT monster.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
You can't specify the position of a particle to greater precision than its wavelength, so the number of distinguishable positions a particle can have is finite and depends on its energy.
The ambient temperature of the universe from background radiation is 2.7 degrees Kelvin. Find yourself a handy dandy superfluid helium heat sink that fits nicely around the galactic core... any high school kid can figure out how to do that, and you can lower that to 1.7 degrees Kelvin! I haven't tried it yet at home, but I bet you could pull another 12^100 manipulations out of it over the next trillion years!
;-P
I hear that Intel finally plans to release their new line of Higgs Boson based universe macroprocessors next year, and that will of course leave all of these benchmarks in the dust, but I'm sure some hobbyist will find a way to overclock those universes as well. AMD has tried to do some tesseract-based preemptive processing, but the Matrix System Agents doesn't think that extra juice is needed to continue fooling the human batteries that the universe is just one big number crunch, so they may lose market share.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Isn't the Universe an analog sytstem?
It's nice that he decided that changes in quantum state are equivilent to 'bits', the changes in the universe also happen without a quantum state change. He also doesn't acount for the movement of sub-atomic particles, or even the number of quantum states of each paricle. These 'bits' in his formula could not be binary for sure.
Hence it seems to me his equation is flawed in attempting to express the universe as a digital computer. Perhaps he should re-state the problem and look at the universe as an analog computer like it really is.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
Support contracts ? :-)
Sure, it's called having a shrink on retainer. 8)
"We were half way to Rivendell when the drugs began to take hold."
-- Hunter S. Tolkien
In all seriousness though, did you get my point?
"Derp de derp."
Tonight at 9:00 PM (Eastern Time) Discovery Channel (Channel 42) features a one hour program on the origins of the Universe.
In this feature, of which 21 minutes is devoted to NCSA produced visualizations, which includes the spectacular rendition of a flight from earth to the massive black hole on the center of our galaxy.
21 minutes of NCSA rendered graphics...yummm..
So dont miss it, even if you werent a space geek. Being a graphics fan would do fine.
Rapid Nirvana
worked out the theoretical maximum possible power a laptop computer could posess
I didn't read about this, but it seems that unless he absolutely and rigidly defined what a laptop is (which I don't think is necessarily definable considering what a "portable" from 30 years ago was and therefore what it might mean in another 30 years) he is going to feel very silly and very wrong in a short while.
--------
It's OK to be social, just don't tell anyone about it.
There are numerous researchers who have said that the multiverse (of which our universe is of course just a tiny part) has a total information content of essentially zero.
Those of you with too much time on your hands may enjoy Schmidhuber's 1996 paper, A Computer Scientist's View of Life, the Universe, and Everything.
And check out the Everything List archives too.
--| THE TRANSITION FROM THE EMPIRICAL TO THE IDEAL |---
We take hold of a warm object, for example. The scientist will tell us: What you are calling the heat or warmth is the effect on your own nerves. Objectively, there is the movement of molecules and atoms. These you can study, after the laws of mechanics. So then they study the laws of mechanics, of atoms and molecules; indeed, for a long time they imagined that by so doing they would at last contrive to explain all the phenomena of Nature. Today, of course, this hope is rather shaken. But even if we do press forward to the atom with our thinking, even then we shall have to ask - and seek the answer by experiment - How are the forces in the atom? How does the mass reveal itself in its effects, - how does it work? And if you put this question, you must ask again: How will you recognize it? You can only recognize the mass by its effects.
The customary way is to recognize the smallest unit bearer of mechanical force by its effect, in answering this question: If such a particle brings another minute particle - say, a minute particle of matter weighing one gramme - into movement, there must he some force proceeding from the matter in the one, which brings the other into movement. If then the given mass brings the other mass, weighing one gramme, into movement in such a way that the latter goes a centimetre a second faster in each successive second, the former mass will have exerted a certain force. This force we are accustomed to regard as a kind of universal unit. If we are then able to say of some force that it is so many times greater than the force needed to make a gramme go a centimetre a second quicker every second, we know the ratio between the force in question and the chosen universal unit. If we express it as a weight, it is 0.001019 grammes' weight. Indeed, to express what this kind of force involves, we must have recourse to the balance - the weighing-machine. The unit force is equivalent to the downward thrust that comes into play when 0.001019 grammes are being weighed. So then I have to express myself in terms of something very outwardly real if I want to approach what is called ÒmassÓ in this Universe. Howsoever I may think it out, I can only express the concept ÒmassÓ by introducing what I get to know in quite external ways, namely a weight. In the last resort, it is by a weight that I express the mass, and even if I then go on to atomize it, I still express it by a weight.
I have reminded you of all this, in order clearly to describe the point at which we pass, from what can still be determined Òa prioriÓ, into the realm of real Nature. We need to be very clear on this point. The truths of arithmetic, geometry and kinematics, - these we undoubtedly determine apart from external Nature. But we must also be clear, to what extent these truths are applicable to that which meets us, in effect, from quite another side - and, to begin with, in mechanics. Not till we get to mechanics, have we the content of what we call Òphenomenon of NatureÓ.
All this was clear to Goethe. Only where we pass on from kinematics to mechanics can we begin to speak at all of natural phenomena. Aware as he was of this, he knew what is the only possible relation of Mathematics to Natural Science, though Mathematics be ever so idolized even for this domain of knowledge.
To bring this home, I will adduce one more example. Even as we may think of the unit element, for the effects of Force in Nature, as a minute atom-like body which would be able to impart an acceleration of a centimetre per second per second to a gramme-weight, so too with every manifestation of Force, we shall be able to say that the force proceeds from one direction and works towards another. Thus we may well grow accustomed - for all the workings of Nature - always to look for the points from which the forces proceed. Precisely this has grown habitual, nay dominant, in Science. Indeed in many instances we really find it so. There are whole fields of phenomena which we can thus refer to the points from which the forces, dominating the phenomena, proceed. We therefore call such forces Òcentric forcesÓ, inasmuch as they always issue from point-centres. It is indeed right to think of centric forces wherever we can find so many single points from which quite definite forces, dominating a given field of phenomena, proceed. Now need the forces always come into play. It may well be that the point-centre in question only bears in it the possibility, the potentiality as it were, for such a play of forces to arise, whereas the forces do not actually come into play until the requisite conditions are fulfilled in the surrounding sphere. We shall have instances of this during the next few days. It is as though forces were concentrated at the points in question, - forces however that are not yet in action. Only when we bring about the necessary conditions, will they call forth actual phenomena in their surroundings. Yet we must recognize that in such point or space forces are concentrated, able potentially to work on their environment.
This in effect is what we always look for, when speaking of the World in terms of Physics. All physical research amounts to this: we follow up the centric forces to their centres; we try to find the points from which effects can issue, For this kind of effect in Nature, we ate obliged to assume that there are centres, charged as it were with possibilities of action in certain directions. And we have sundry means of measuring these possibilities of action; we can express in stated measures, how strongly such a point or centre has the potentiality of working. Speaking in general terms, we call the measure of a force thus centred and concentrated a ÒpotentialÓ or Òpotential forceÓ. In studying these effects of Nature we then have to trace the potentials of the centric forces, - so we may formulate it. We look for centres which we then investigate as sources of potential forces.
Such, in effect, is the line taken by that school of Science which is at pains to express everything in mechanical terms. It looks for centric forces and their potentials. In this respect our need will be to take one essential step - out into actual Nature - whereby we shall grow fully conscious of the fact: You cannot possibly understand any phenomenon in which Life plays a part if you restrict yourself to this method, looking only for the potentials of centric forces. Say you were studying the play of forces in an animal or vegetable embryo or germ-cell; with this method you would never find your way. No doubt it seems an ultimate ideal to the Science of today, to understand even organic phenomena in terms of potentials, of centric forces of some kind. It will be the dawn of a new world-conception in this realm when it is recognized that the thing cannot be done in this way, Phenomena in which Life is working can never be understood in terms of centric forces. Why, in effect, - why not? Diagrammatically, let us here imagine that we are setting out to study transient, living phenomena of Nature in terms of Physics. We look for centres, - to study the potential effects that may go out from such centres. Suppose we find the effect. If I now calculate the potentials, say for the three points a, b and c, I find that a will work thus and thus on A, B and C, or c on A', B' and C'; and so on. I should thus get a notion of how the integral effects will be, in a certain sphere, subject to the potentials of such and such centric forces. Yet in this way I could never explain any process involving Life. In effect, the forces that are essential to a living thing have no potential; they are not centric forces. If at a given point d you tried to trace the physical effects due to the influences of a, b and c, you would indeed be referring to the effects to centric forces, and you could do so. But if you want to study the effects of Life you can never do this. For these effects, there are no centres such as a or b or c. Here you will only take the right direction with your thinking when you speak thus: Say that at d there is something alive. I look for the forces to which the life is subject. I shall not find them in a, nor in b, nor in c, nor when I go still farther out. I only find them when as it were I go to the very ends of the world - and, what is more, to the entire circumference at once. Taking my start from d, I should have to go to the outermost ends of the Universe and imagine forces to the working inward from the spherical circumference from all sides, forces which in their interplay unite in d. It is the very opposite of the centric forces with their potentials. How to calculate a potential for what works inward from all sides, from the infinitudes of space? In the attempt, I should have to dismember the forces; one total force would have to be divided into ever smaller portions. Then I should get nearer and nearer the edge of the World: - the force would be completely sundered, and so would all my calculation. Here in effect it is not centric forces; it is cosmic, universal forces that are at work. Here, calculation ceases.
Once more, you have the leap - the leap, this time, from that in Nature which is not alive to that which is. In the investigation of Nature we shall only find our way aright if we know what the leap is from Kinematics to Mechanics, and again what the leap is from external, inorganic Nature into those realms that are no longer accessible to calculation, - where every attempted calculation breaks asunder and every potential is dissolved away. This second leap will take us from external inorganic Nature into living Nature, and we must realize that calculation ceases where we want to understand what is alive.
(Rudolf Steiner, The Light Course, Lecture 1)
Light Course, Lecture 1, Rudolf Steiner
Warning: Do not read if you are not Zaphod Beeblebrox.
Okay, 10 ^ 80 fundamental particles. That's a lot.
Then, 10 ^ 90 bits, or 10 ^ 10 bits per particle.
Those 10 ^ 10 bits each particle possesses, can express a meager 2 ^ 10 ^ 10 = 10 ^ 3 billion or so possible values (since 2 ^ 10 = 10 ^ 3). Let's assume that the universe is a cube, with a "resolution" of 10 ^ -24 meters (electrons don't really have a radius, but when you try to measure it all you can say is that it's less than 10 ^ -18 meters, a millionth of that seems safe.)
So, 10 ^ 3 billion numbers can represent positions on three dimensional axese 10 ^ 1 billion "units" long - that's the cubed root.
Even if our pixel is only 10 ^ -24 meters across, we only lose 24 (to meters) and 16 (to light years) decimal orders of magnitude, so that's describes a cube 10 ^ (1 billion - 40) light years on a side.
Realizing that my overclocked, water cooled Duron, which I had thought was so l33t, is nothing compared to the infinite cosmos upon which it is only a tiny speck, I go insane, and start thinking about relativity.
Okay, to say that events that occur at different points in space is actually meaningless. Relativistically nonsensical. It's may be a requirement at the quantum scale, or it may fuzz out somehow from the heizenberg uncertainty principle (which applies to time as well as space,) but anyway - with no real concept of simultaneity shared by different bits of the great computer, how does the universe get anything done? Maybe, the universal background radiation isn't just something we use as a clock, maybe it REALLY IS A CLOCK - a synchronizing pulse.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
then everything looks like a nail.
If the universe is a computer then everything must be a calculation. Funny I thought I was more than that.
Nobody has mentioned yet this little nugget: If the universe is a computer then we are but small little threads of the Earth process. And we have no such thing as free will... just private member variables that we're not aware of.
--Rob
Is there a version control system in place? I want check out a previous version and get my old girlfriend back...
c-hack.com |
I've thought about this before, and came to the conclusion that if I ever build my own universe I'm going to need to use data compression of some sort, and kind of fudge the details. I mean, who cares exactly where an electron is, as long as it statistically behaves like it should?
The scary thing is, the more I've learned about quantum mechanics, the more it looks like that's how the universe works.
For instance, gravity seems to have a universal effect. It diminishes over distance, but ultimately never stops having an effect. Thus, for every movement, you'd first need to look at all elements of the "gravity map" to determine your precise gravity vector, then you'd need to update the "gravity map" with your movement. This would seem to have at least an N^2 effect. The universe doesn't seem at least to kludge on things like this.
Many forces act like this, which would tend to make the exponent on the number of bit manipulations required blossom much faster than predicted. Take a look at raytracer graphic design to see how messy reality can be when you introduce more than a couple elements into a scene, much less of course a universe. If one is going for a true simulation of reality, at least force by force, particle by particle, I believe it's going to be more complex than this estimation.
:^)
Ryan Fenton
Time may not even exist at all. It could just be an artifact of a limitation in our sensory experience of existence.
Just be sure to wear the gold uniform when you beam down -- you know what happens when you wear the red one.
1) Yeah, but it's an ANALOG computer. How passe!
2) Except, it isn't even an analog computer, because there is no analogy involved; no abstractions, nothing representing anything else in a simpler, faster, cheaper or more convenient way.
Remember the map of England in Lewis Carroll's "Sylvie and Bruno?" Well, I'm not sure I remember it, but, IIRC it was at a scale of one inch to the inch, so it was extremely accurate, but very annoying when unfolded and spread out.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
BTW he is only talking about the observable universe in considering its computational capacity. For all we know the entire universe is infinite, but we can only see a finite bubble about 13 billion light years in radius. That's the part Lloyd is considering.
You're making the same fallacy that zeno made: an arrow can never reach it's target because it has to reach the halfway point first. While it's true that an arrow has to reach the halfway point first, the conclusion is flawed because zeno assumed that the sum of an infinite series is always equal to infinity, and that's just simply not true.
I see. :)
"Derp de derp."
The size is too big by a factor of about 100000. If it were something like 10^85, that would be a 256 bit addressing range, indicating we are a simulation, à la "Matrix", or, much better, "The 13th Floor".
"calculated 2 years ago"? Didn't Bremmerman calculated theoretical limit of computation speed back in the sixties? A gram of matter might compute 10^^47 bits per second. If the earth were a solid computer for all its known history, it could have computed a total of 10^^73 bits. If the universe were a computer it could have computed about 10^^100 bits.
What OS will it run? It's an important question. Our current OS wars may presage the battle for ultimate control of the substructure of the entire universe.
Apparently a lot of mathematicians haven't done much philosophy. This kind of thinking was best expressed way, way back by Plato. Basically, you've got the world of real instances, and then you've got the world of the concepts that relate those instances.
The Really Big Problem with this view of reality is that there are not necessarily any concepts without us to imagine them. While they're beautiful and useful, concepts are a *simplification* of our experience. Mathematics (as we know it) did not exist before we formulated it. It's a concept, not a thing. The universe, as far as we know, is a thing. There is no necessary correlation. And if you can find someone who disagrees with that, you've found someone who doesn't appreciate the magnitude of what they're talking about, isn't qualified to talk about it.
Mathematics can be used to compute all of the universe's gyrations with great accuracy
But not perfect accuracy, not perfect precision - not yet. And as much as it may hurt to hear it, unless it's perfect, it's not right. And you're not going to achieve perfect through conveniences - which is what mathematics is.
[|]
10^90 is about 2^300 bits
10^120 is about 2^400 operations
Now, can anyone explain to me why anyone would need a cryptographic hash function with a 512 bit output?
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
Cricket is a simplified version of baseball in which there are only two bases, but to confuse you the pitchers periodically change direction. Also, the bats are bigger because cricket players are fuelled by beer, and their coordination isn't so hot.
Relevance? well, this thread is about big numbers. And I think it was the Hungarian humorist George Mikes who said that the English, lacking a religion, invented cricket to give themselves an idea of eternity.
No, I confess, completely off topic.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
The hard part is finding other things u is equivalent to.
BRENT ROCKWOOD, EST'd 1975
Depending on how simplified your laws of physics are, there are screensavers right now that would fit the bill.
DNA just wants to be free...
The solution is that the arrow can pass through an infinite number of points in a finite amount of time.
In other words, the sum of
People seem to respond to these things as if it represented a total reversal/revision of our understanding of existence.
I honestly don't see what difference it makes.
DNA just wants to be free...
How many of us read this headline and thought, "YEAH! FORTY-TWO BABY!!! +5 Funny Karma, here I come! WOO!!!"
>click
D'oh.
There is a Planck length and a Planck time. It is conventionally meaningless to speak of a length or a time that is smaller than these. The following URL explains it easily enough:
2 81 . fm
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae
It would seem that the Universe is inherently "grainy". Perhaps the universe is some sense analog since probability completely rules any time or space frame smaller than that but a digital computer probably isn't a completely bad model to this scale.
I also wonder if photons with a wavelength smaller than the Planck length are possible. Is 1.875x10e34 Ghz the highest possible frequency? If not, do photons of higher frequency have any special properties?
The only thing besides the balloon (surface) is not-the-balloon (be it buildings or air, or, what have you).
Now, if we take the surface of the balloon as our "space", then anything not part of the surface is "not-space".
Unfortunately our definitions of "beyond" and "outside" depend upon space in a way that they do not depend upon a rubber membrane, so the analogy breaks down.
Analogies are only of limited use here.
DNA just wants to be free...
... or someone had a lot of free time on his hands to come up with such an answer. I mean, I'd classify this in the category of useless knowledge.
Actually even on macro scales some quantum effects (e.g. quantum gravity) have observable results. For example, orbits decay faster than they otherwise might because of energy loss through gravitational waves.
DNA just wants to be free...
The only question is: are there boundaries?
...
If there is a distance which we cannot cross, then asking what lies beyond it is as silly as asking if there are invisible faries in the room. If we can get an instrument across the boundary to measure it, then it isn't really a boundary.
.. and William James smiles at me from beyond the grave
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
When you think about the Athlon on your desk running GNU/Linux, you could consider it not so much as a "computer" itself but as an tiny interface to a deep computational reality that is the universe. That is, your Athlon only computes because it is a certain special pattern of bits in a larger system which supports computation. So, your Athlon provides a special kind of interface between your mind and that larger computationally reality -- say, like a Series 1 minicomputer was often used to provide full screen editing interfaces to much larger IBM mainframes. An Athlon may be a tiny little keyhole to peak through compared to the size of the universe, but it is perhaps better than nothing. Think of your Athlon as being more like a telescope or microscope than a thing of study itself (not to say an Athlon can't be studied of course). Someday, perhaps we will store information in the very fabric of reality itself, and computations will be perfomed on that information without physical silicon needing to be present. Probably we'll still just mainly use it to embed smiley faces everywhere though. :-) Or edit them if one is so inclined. :)
By the way, I first saw this idea of "the universe is a computer" referenced in the 1988 book by Robert Wright called "Three Scientists and their Gods:Looking for Meaning in an Age of Information" in the part about Edward Fredkin, see for example: http://www.santafe.edu/~johnson/reviews.wright.htm l
and:
http://digitalphysics.org/Publications/Fredkin/New -Cosmogony/
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
You might be suprized that you can store all of the information of the universe (all 10^90 bits worth) on a popsickle(tm) stick.
Here's how you do it: First encode it all in a text string. Then convert the string to it's ASCII numerical equivalents, but keep all the numerical equivalents packed together so it's like a string. Now place a decimal point at the beginning. What you have is a fractional number between one and zero, i.e. a ratio. Carefully measure the popsicle stick and make a mark for your ratio. There, done! All the information of the universe on a popsicle stick.
BTM
That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
no, a Theory in any real science is a guess that has been rigorously tested and is considered the best model of the facts that currently exists. Cosmologists throw this word around with reckless abandon, but in math, physics, chemistry, or (in most cases) biology, a theory is something pretty solid. however, in the context of the quoted sentence, "theory" means "study" so "Information Theory" is the study of information and information systems, not any particular hypothesis about such systems.
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
The following may be absurd, but (in a manner similar to Carl Sagan's Cosmos series) it may help enlighten us as to how much detail we don't see and don't collect about a particular event.
Instead of the entire universe, let's take a look at a World Cup soccer/football game.
We cannot come close to understanding, though, the amount of data necessary to "record" that event. It is only through selective compression, what our senses tell us, that we develop our view of that event. For some, like Mr. Vieri, he may remember what he felt and experienced during and after that event. A fan in Italy might remember what they saw, and might even have a tape or picture that shows one view of the event. A sports writer in Equador might only remember that Italy beat Ecuador 2-0. The average person on planet Earth will have no knowledge or recollection of the event, and frankly, won't care because life is too short.
Good analysis of events is compression. Our memory is compression of our experiences. With good compression, we won't have to record everything, and therefore avoid the "explosion of data" as best we can. As we collect data, we need to consider its importance to us and discard anything not relevant.
For detail we do care about (eg: data needed to compute Earth's weather), we might try to build large data repositories and build expensive computers to process that data, but most of the Universe's data is best left unknown to us because it's not important to us (yet).
- ez
PS: You gotta hand it to the folks at Google for attempting to collect and store so much data from the Internet.
The ultimate question is NOT "If the universe is a giant computer, how big is it?"
It's "If the universe is a giant computer, what the hell is it computing?"
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Yeah, like someone said in a different reply to your post "Intermediate Value Theorem." Essentially what this means is that in a continuous curve, if the value on one part of the curve is 4 and further along it's 7, (and it's a continuous curve: meaning no holes or gaps) then at some point, the curve will pass through any and every value between 4 and 7.
Applying it to this, if the arrow starts at zero (that's where it starts), and ends up at 1, it must pass through 0.5 first. In other words in has to reach halfway before it reaches it's destination. I know I'm just restating your question; there is a mathematical proof that proves this is true, but it seems kind of intuitive to me.
So zeno said, if it must reach halfway first, it will continually reach the half way point over and over again (first 0.5, then 0.75, then 0.875) so you will never reach your target. What zeno didn't realize is that the sum of an infinite series (the time it takes to reach your target) is not always infinity. So since the time it takes to travel each step gets closer and closer to zero, it never passes a certain point, that point being exactly how long it takes you, in reality, to reach your target.
I mean, it's not like there's going to be a bigger calculator in the universe than, well, the universe itself.
--Matthew
Here we go kiddies, on a romp through introductory quantum physics; when we get to the other side of the ride, please exit in an orderly fashion.
Lession 1: Particles do not have an exact position. This is just a lame restatement Heisenberg's Uncertainty Priciple.
Lession 2: The state of a particle is represented as a probability function over all of space. The probability is the likelyhood that we will observe that particle at the location. For every point in space, there is a nonzero value for this function. This means that you could observe a particle anywhere--not just where we expect to see it. We don't ofter see particles jump around because the probability curve is a fairly sharp spike (for particles like electrons), which quickly tapers off to near zero.
Lesson 3: The state of a single particle therefore has an infinite amount of information. Still, most single particle systems can be summed up with less than an infinite amount of information.
Lession 4: A multiple particle system cannot be represented by anything less than the combined probability function for the two particles. Presentely, we have no idea how to represent the state of a two particle system with anything less than an infinite amount of information. We can approximate many two particle systems to any degree we desire, but the inherent inaccuracies will always add up.
My point is that the Universe cannot be represented by less than an infinite amount of information. Even worse, every particle in the Universe requires aleph one (real number) size infinities. So, any attempt to express the amount of information in the Universe as a finite value is fundamentally, inherently, loosingly and bogusly pointless.
Yes, I'm still a junky. Are you still a bitch?
Asimov calculated the max computing power of the universe in either 'the sun shines bright' or
'counting the eons'. Of course, I'm not sure if he assumed a newtonian universe to do this, and whether quantum computers could improve on this... of course, dosen't the universe contain a potentially infinite amount of information since space is a continum and not discrete?
IANAP.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
So much for that "universe of infinite possibilities"... Hell, we can calculate it all out! *A star winks out of existance* Oops. Forgot to carry the two. Is this guy really that naive to think he can accurately do something like that? What's his error factor? +/- 3^8 ?? It's almost like... Like... Like predicting a pattern of (dare I say "global") warming using a sliver of history as an example!
..Basically, said admin has reversed it's policy on Global warming. Hey, Kyoto and U-571 mad news here... What's up?
Which leads me to the perfect segway...
2002-06-03 19:25:40 Bush Administration Global Warming Turnabout (articles,news) (rejected) [TOTAL REJECTED TO DATE: 9/9]
You need a FREE iPod Nano
When you so confidently dismiss mathematics as "not existing before we formulated it," you not only are being vague about "we", you are also restricting the term mathematics to mean less than most people mean when they say it.
If two mathematicians discover the same theorem independently, what that means is that the common set of axioms they are working with had some consequences that were unknown, but now are known by both mathematicians. Those consequences (that is, the theorem) obviously existed independently of either mathematician, since the other one would have discovered it alone. It therefore seems more sensible to attribute the existence of the theorem to the axioms rather than the mathematicians.
If you accept that theorems belong to axioms, then the number of theorems is potentially unlimited, and certainly greater than now "exist" or ever will exist under your restricted definition. What good is a definition like that?
I study computer science, not physics, but from what I learned in high school, the current theory of the universe is founded on the existence of an uncountable infinity. This would imply that the universe in inherently something more than a computer as computers deal with countably infinite entities at best, if not countably finite entities.
Of course, these things are just shadows in our minds of the greater reality we exist in. Thats why I never really liked science and chose to study a branch of mathematics (computer science).
Zeno's Paradox is proof that math doesn't have anything to do with the universe.
Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
That's funny, I think the exact opposite, seeing that nobody had any sort of answer to Zeno's Paradoxes at all until Calculus was developed.
... I can just play Quake!
Cryo-chamber, here I come!
c-hack.com |
Yeah, I know a lot of people who think that way. While I'll grant that we invented math as an useful abstraction roughly approximating how one aspect of the universe works, the abstraction is still not the universe. As in any abstraction, detailed content is lost in the hopes of formalization. Unfortunately, such detail is algorithmically necessary for being the universe... it's not just a matter of setting a few constants and pressing "enter" in the math box.
Math is not a natural science.
-l
Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
It's not an analogy. It's a perspective. From a certain point of view the universe might look exactly like a computer. If it does then it might as well be a computer because you can treat it exactly like one. This doesn't preclude the possibility that there might be other points of view too.
There is, of course, the possibility that it's not a valid point of view. But that needs more arguing than simply "the universe isn't a computer".
-- SIGFPE
Isn't it obvious he's a Sith Lord?
Must resist the dark side!!
(This is one I heard; I didn't think it up myself)
If you wrapped a cord around the Earth's equator (assuming a perfectly round, solid Earth), and then wished to lengthen that cord so that it could be suspended one foot above the equator at every point, while still making a full loop around, by how much would you have to lengthen the cord?
"It's overkill, of course. But you can never have too much overkill." - Anonymous Slashdot Coward
no, I am saying that since the computer would be in the universe, it can never simulate everything in the universe, because it is IN the universe itself. You need more matter, energy or time to simulate something then the matter/energy/time it took to do the thing in the first place.
How can you simulate 5 atoms using only 2 atoms? answer, you can't. You would need AT LEAST 5 atoms. Take this argument to the next level and you would need AT LEAST every atom in the universe, to simulate the universe. And that doesn't take into account overhead, which I am sure would be quite large.
Just look at where we are today, it takes a year for a supercomputer the size of a football stadium to simulate a few hundred atoms for a couple microseconds.
The only way I can see anything simulating the universe is if they find a way to tap into a quantum effect to use multiple universes to simulate our universe (assuming there are multiple universes).
I got the century wrong but yes, this was an idea. Here's a history site.
They were so overwhelmed by the idea that you could pump AIR instead of just water (and that it would invisibly kill things in bell jars), that they started wondering what else you could pump--e.g. thoughts. Here's Descartes playing with the idea:
"The cavities of the brain are central reservoirs...animal spirits enter these cavities. They pass into the pores of its substance and from these pores into the nerves. The nerves may be compared to the tubes of a waterworks; breathing or other actions depend on the flow of animal spirits into the nerves. The rational soul (the pineal) takes place of the engineer, living in that part of the reservoir that connects all of the various tubes...."
It's impossible to understand things like Motion or pretty much anything else without Math. Logic is part of Math.
Goedel, a mathemetician even proved the limitations of Mathematics. So, only through rigorous Math can we truly understand that Math, or any formalism, is not the Universe.
If you want to resort to some sort of mystical understanding of the Universe that depend on Math and Logic, you're welcome to it.
Just wait for the next generation of computers then: they will be able to simulate the whole history of the universe, plus those 600 years, plus another 13 *billion* years more :).
We didn't so much invent Mathematics as we discovered it.
That's your belief.
Math works because it describes the Universe.
No, math works because it is intended to model the universe just like a spoon feeds your mouth because that's what it was designed to do or a compiler compiles code or English assists communication or ...
Mathematics is a developing language used to roughly model some aspects of observed behavior in the universe. Math isn't what the universe does --- math is a tool through which we understand a collection of observations about the universe.
Do not confuse the microscope with the microbes.
-l
Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
Holy shit, this is exactly what I was telling my friend a few months ago, but he didn't understand. It's essentially the same thing the article was saying, but I was saying it exactly like you were: If you're going to simulate all the fundamental particles in the Universe, you'd need at least that many to calculate it in real-time. And to calculate it faster than real-time (predict the future) you'd need more fundamental particles than the entire system (the universe). I know I just repeated everything you just said, I'm just excited that someone put it the exact same way I was thinking it.
Just to point out: even though I agree with you, and it seems pretty intuitive, the fact is I don't think I can really *prove* it, because there might be computational shortcuts.
The one other flaw in this is the quantum uncertainty effects. Even though I don't understand quantum mechanics, and have not integrated it into my thought process, hence the above conjecture, I still must concede that it is true, because, apparently it's been proven many many times, and is well grounded. Taking that into account, isn't there at a certain level of the universe, things which can't be calculated and are purely left to chance (non-deterministic)? According to quantum mechanics, God *does* play dice with the universe, and that, by definition, cannot be calculated.
His entire series of calculations are based on the observable universe, not the actual universe. We already know from Inflationary Theory, that the universe went through a rapid expansion phase resulting in a present day size of the universe at least 10^35 ly Radius!!! That being the case, his calculations are under-par by hundreds of orders of magnitude!! My calcularions suggest that the total number of computation the universe has made to be at the very minimum 10^400 operations.
www.enthea.org
- We didn't so much invent Mathematics as we discovered it.
That's your belief.Yes, and your view is a belief also. In fact, all positions are beliefs, so what? You label it a belief as if it's a withering criticism, when in fact, it's just a definition.
I don't want to get into a deep epistemological discussion on Slashdot, of all places. I will point out that you can't prove your position any more than I can prove mine. You, however, would deny that a proof is anything but an empty manipulation of symbols, devoid of any meaning.
We men "invent" math and logic. Right. Forget the observation that children are prewired for language and logic. Math and logic are at the base of our being. This is clear to me.
Yes, I'm a platonist. I see a theory in map theory is reminiscient of one in number theory. Is it because I invented it that way, or is there a mathematic truth that binds them together that I discovered through their similarity?
In the end, these are just appeals. I can't reason with someone who believes that reasoning is arbitrary.
They used to argue the same sort of things about negative numbers, but then their utility in showing direction proved too attractive to abandon them as "merely" abstract.
Similarly, irrational numbers are used to model multiple dimensions.
Various concepts of infinity come into play in Calculus and topology, which may seem very abstract now, may someday prove to help us understand reality.
Non-euclidean geometries were once considered the height of useless abstraction, but have come in very handy in Relativity and String Theory.
All Maths are grounded in the Universe as they are discovered by our minds which are part of the Universe. If we can recognize a logical mathematics, then it is a recognition of a logical formalism that our minds can comprehend.
Many people have wondered before why the laws of nature are such simple equations. The reason is clear: it's much easier to simulate that way. The simpler and more elegant the laws of physics are, the more likely it becomes that this is not the real universe.
The basic idea is that energy and entropy are related to the fundamental limits of computation, so if you know the energy and entropy density of the universe, and the size of the observable bit, you can figure out the relevant number of bits and computations...
Energy: time to change the picture.
http://www.ldolphin.org/vanFlandern/gravityspeed.
At least from the evidence of the above link provided, gravity does not appear to be limited as you might think. It's effect doesn't even appear to be limited to the speed of light according to many observations! Rather, it may be more of an inherant pull of space-time, a structural effect, if you will. Of course, there are also unknowns such as the accellerating expansion of the universe which help confuse understanding even further.
Anyway, these are just simple observations from someone who is not a physicist, but is instead a college programmer who tries to understand the universe as far as simulation of forces is concerned. It still appears that there are essential types of forces out there, whether basic or not, that we still can't recreate with known observations. The effects of gravity in all it's incarnations still fits that category.
I'd definetly be interested in counter-arguments though!
:^)
Ryan Fenton
Slightly OT, but the other thread about us being able to simulate the universe in 600 yrs if Moore's law doesn't have some theoretical limit... so your post is a good starting point to oppose the theory just a bit... (don't take me too seriously)
Difficulties should appear if humans could ever create a computer with the purpose of simulating the whole universe: It's like making a P3 processor emulate a P4 and get away with the "speed gains:" How could a computer simulate the universe in real time, since it would strain the speed of the universe to "power" that computer anyway... However, if time itself slowed down in the simulation, our brains would never notice the difference because they're tied to time as well.
"Wireless : LAN
What the heck are you on about ? The crucial problem is that one can express a paradox.
while (this_program_halts()) {}
where this_program_halts() returns true if the preceeding program terminates.
Personally I think the whole thing is a crock of shit anyway, brought about by a refusal to recognise that supposedly yes/no questions sometimes have 3 possible answers (yes,no,paradox). It is pretty difficult to determine whether a program will halt even if one avoids paradox, it's an arbitarily difficult problem which you won't find a simple algorithm for. However, the pretence that the paradox tells us anything profound says more about the limitations of mathematicians than anything else.
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
No shit.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
When you think about it, you realize that what the Judeo-Christians have done with "God" is similar to what Microsoft did with "Office", "Word", and "Windows" - appropriate a common word to further their own ends.
As for the capitalization of "Him", admit it, "respect" is just a euphemism for "fear". Anyone who believes in a god of love as opposed to a god of vengeance and pettiness would not feel the need to capitalize parts of speech that refer to their god, because she would know what they mean and how they mean it.
bc(1) is SOOO much fun!
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
You'd still need to do the simulation at the micro-level. The granularity of the simulation (or reality) has a big effect on the behavior of these kinds of systems.
DNA just wants to be free...