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
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
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?
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?
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.'
(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
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.
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.
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.
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
no!!, its whats 6 times 9. Which actually gives 54, but gives 42 is base 13. Though Douglas Adams swears the base thing was a pure accident.
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
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
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.
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 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
How many of us read this headline and thought, "YEAH! FORTY-TWO BABY!!! +5 Funny Karma, here I come! WOO!!!"
>click
D'oh.
Well, that all depends on which religion you believe in, of course.
The ancient Incans believed that it ran Solaris.
The christians, SonOS.
The scientologists reportedly believe it runs Xenux, but since their scriptures are secret, who can say?
Me, I think god was probably a true hippy, and it's running some flavor of BSD, but that's just my own opinion.
Between lesson 2 and lesson 3 you've botched things. Just because the particle has a wavefunction over an infinite domain does not mean it contains an infinite amount of information.
If the particle has finite energy, then that places a limit on the curvature of the wavefunction, and therefore on the "information density" of that wavefunction.
Furthermore, the finite age of the universe sets a limit on the distinguishability of particle states from one another. Very fine separation of energy states require a long evolution period to be distinguishable. (delta-E delta-t ~ h-bar) That sets a limit on the number of currently distinguishable eigenstates of the universe.
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
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...."
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 :).
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.
- 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.