Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

Computational Capacity of the Universe

RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 5:24:24 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Computational capacity of the universe
Seth Lloyd
d"Arbeloff Laboratory for Information Systems and Technology
MIT Department of Mechanical Engineering
(Published Physical Review Letters, 10 June 2002)

Merely by existing, all physical systems register information. And by evolving dynamically in time, they transform and process that information. The laws of physics determine the amount of information that a physical system can register (number of bits) and the number of elementary logic operations that a system can perform (number of ops). The Universe is a physical system.

The amount of information that the Universe can register and the number of elementary operations that it can have performed over its history are calculated. The Universe can have performed no more than 10^120 ops on 10^90 bits (10^120 bits including gravitational degrees of freedom)


[https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org...]

Does it seem credible to you that the amount of information in our universe can be captured by a fixed amount of storage and processing? If not, why not, and what would need to be explained for this to be more credible?

If the universe as we know it can be captured by a fixed amount of storage and processing, in principle is it deterministic?

If the universe to date really does contain only a finite amount of information, does this make it more or less plausible that it is:
a) a product of some design process, rather than simply emergent?
b) not unique?

If the processing power of the universe is limited, are there some questions that cannot be answered within the universe itself? How does that influence the way we should classify and evaluate knowledge?

Do you believe that the universe preserves its information? I.e, that the universe's processing could be potentially reversed, if you knew the rules, and enough of its state information? So that you could recreate an ancient manuscript, or a dead brain from the information held in its remnants and the world around it?

I hope these questions may interest. :)
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 6:15:36 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 5:24:24 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Computational capacity of the universe
Seth Lloyd
d"Arbeloff Laboratory for Information Systems and Technology
MIT Department of Mechanical Engineering
(Published Physical Review Letters, 10 June 2002)

Merely by existing, all physical systems register information. And by evolving dynamically in time, they transform and process that information. The laws of physics determine the amount of information that a physical system can register (number of bits) and the number of elementary logic operations that a system can perform (number of ops). The Universe is a physical system.

The amount of information that the Universe can register and the number of elementary operations that it can have performed over its history are calculated. The Universe can have performed no more than 10^120 ops on 10^90 bits (10^120 bits including gravitational degrees of freedom)


[https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org...]

Does it seem credible to you that the amount of information in our universe can be captured by a fixed amount of storage and processing? If not, why not, and what would need to be explained for this to be more credible?

No, the fixed amount of storage and processing is a part of the universe. How can a part of something hold all the information it has to offer. That's impossible.

If the universe as we know it can be captured by a fixed amount of storage and processing, in principle is it deterministic?

Even if you consider the universe as finite, it is not deterministic. Time and matter continue to create new information.

If the universe to date really does contain only a finite amount of information, does this make it more or less plausible that it is:
a) a product of some design process, rather than simply emergent?

It makes the universe emergent, if you overlook the fact that irrationality exists and hence unpredictability..

b) not unique?

Not necessarily.

If the processing power of the universe is limited, are there some questions that cannot be answered within the universe itself?

Yes, given a system is limited.

How does that influence the way we should classify and evaluate knowledge?

Evaluation & classification itself is based upon the knowledge.

Do you believe that the universe preserves its information? I.e, that the universe's processing could be potentially reversed, if you knew the rules, and enough of its state information? So that you could recreate an ancient manuscript, or a dead brain from the information held in its remnants and the world around it?

Every thought that comes to mind is there in the Aakashik records. You get access to Aakashik records when you are dreaming (REM sleep).
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
keithprosser
Posts: 2,053
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 6:16:01 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
I'm not up to speed on the concept of the universe as a quantum computer. No doubt I will improve over time!
What struck me is how expressing numbers as powers of 10 can 'tame' extremely large numbers. Would I have expected them to be even bigger? Maybe, but only because after about 10**10 my number sense shuts down!
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 7:16:43 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Thank you for your thoughts, Riwaaz.

At 4/21/2016 6:15:36 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 4/21/2016 5:24:24 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Does it seem credible to you that the amount of information in our universe can be captured by a fixed amount of storage and processing? If not, why not, and what would need to be explained for this to be more credible?
How can a part of something hold all the information it has to offer.
Good question! What is it that 'holds' the information in the universe, and does its own nature contain additional information? If so, could it be accessed from within the universe whose information it stores?

If the universe as we know it can be captured by a fixed amount of storage and processing, in principle is it deterministic?
Even if you consider the universe as finite, it is not deterministic. Time and matter continue to create new information.
If the universe's information is finite, can future information be predicted from current information, transformed by the laws under which the universe operates?

If so, does that mean future information is fully determined by present information?

If the universe to date really does contain only a finite amount of information, does this make it more or less plausible that it is:
a) a product of some design process, rather than simply emergent?
It makes the universe emergent, if you overlook the fact that irrationality exists and hence unpredictability..
What makes irrationality unpredictable? Is it truly unpredictable, or predictable but ineffective?

b) not unique?
Not necessarily.
I agree. I think it's somehow intuitively more plausible that the universe is not unique if its information is finite. But why should it be more plausible?

I'm not sure.

If the processing power of the universe is limited, are there some questions that cannot be answered within the universe itself?
Yes, given a system is limited.
That seems a reasonable conclusion.

How does that influence the way we should classify and evaluate knowledge?
Evaluation & classification itself is based upon the knowledge.
Are we ever guilty of assuming our ability to acquire knowledge is infinite? If we abandoned that assumption, how might it change the way we treat knowledge and proof?

Do you believe that the universe preserves its information? I.e, that the universe's processing could be potentially reversed, if you knew the rules, and enough of its state information? So that you could recreate an ancient manuscript, or a dead brain from the information held in its remnants and the world around it?
Every thought that comes to mind is there in the Aakashik records.
If this universe were not unique, it might be quite credible that other universes may include records of this one -- or indeed, that this one may include record of others. In fact, I read a conjecture some months back that early on in the inception of this universe, black holes could access universes (i.e. information spaces) outside this one, but that shifting conditions changed that. But if that conjecture were true, there might remain in this universe some trace of what happened early on in other universes.
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 6:28:10 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 7:16:43 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Thank you for your thoughts, Riwaaz.

At 4/21/2016 6:15:36 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 4/21/2016 5:24:24 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Does it seem credible to you that the amount of information in our universe can be captured by a fixed amount of storage and processing? If not, why not, and what would need to be explained for this to be more credible?
How can a part of something hold all the information it has to offer.
Good question! What is it that 'holds' the information in the universe,

Information is everywhere, it just needs to be deciphered.

and does its own nature contain additional information?

As I said before everything is information.

If so, could it be accessed from within the universe whose information it stores?

Imagine you are standing in a crop circle. Standing still can you know what design the field contains?

If the universe as we know it can be captured by a fixed amount of storage and processing, in principle is it deterministic?
Even if you consider the universe as finite, it is not deterministic. Time and matter continue to create new information.
If the universe's information is finite, can future information be predicted from current information, transformed by the laws under which the universe operates?

No, there is uncertainty and unpredictability. You can't predict head or tail if I flip the coin.

If so, does that mean future information is fully determined by present information?

Destiny has been written but we can make free choice. Contradictory but true.

If the universe to date really does contain only a finite amount of information, does this make it more or less plausible that it is:
a) a product of some design process, rather than simply emergent?
It makes the universe emergent, if you overlook the fact that irrationality exists and hence unpredictability..
What makes irrationality unpredictable? Is it truly unpredictable, or predictable but ineffective?

Let's talk maths. You can calculate the succeeding digits of Irrational numbers but you can't predict them.

b) not unique?
Not necessarily.
I agree. I think it's somehow intuitively more plausible that the universe is not unique if its information is finite. But why should it be more plausible?

That's because infinite is all inclusive.

If the processing power of the universe is limited, are there some questions that cannot be answered within the universe itself?
Yes, given a system is limited.
That seems a reasonable conclusion.

How does that influence the way we should classify and evaluate knowledge?
Evaluation & classification itself is based upon the knowledge.
Are we ever guilty of assuming our ability to acquire knowledge is infinite?

Are we? For example, you can stream any video you like but that doesn't mean you can download the whole library there is.

If we abandoned that assumption, how might it change the way we treat knowledge and proof?

We would be set free on an exploratory mode.

Do you believe that the universe preserves its information? I.e, that the universe's processing could be potentially reversed, if you knew the rules, and enough of its state information? So that you could recreate an ancient manuscript, or a dead brain from the information held in its remnants and the world around it?
Every thought that comes to mind is there in the Aakashik records.
If this universe were not unique, it might be quite credible that other universes may include records of this one -- or indeed, that this one may include record of others. In fact, I read a conjecture some months back that early on in the inception of this universe, black holes could access universes (i.e. information spaces) outside this one, but that shifting conditions changed that. But if that conjecture were true, there might remain in this universe some trace of what happened early on in other universes.

I don't dwell much in theories based on presumptions, why do we want to believe universe is finite. In my opinion theories only satiate the curiosity, they don't serve any purpose, don't have any applications either. Science with a mindset of its own? No, that doesn't interest me.
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
keithprosser
Posts: 2,053
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 6:50:36 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
It's a different 'paradigm'. Instead of particles and forces we have too think in terms of(qu)bits and computation. It will take some getting used to.
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 11:11:11 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 6:50:36 AM, keithprosser wrote:
It's a different 'paradigm'. Instead of particles and forces we have too think in terms of(qu)bits and computation. It will take some getting used to.

But why do we have to do that?
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
Stronn
Posts: 318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 12:22:06 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 5:24:24 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Computational capacity of the universe
Seth Lloyd
d"Arbeloff Laboratory for Information Systems and Technology
MIT Department of Mechanical Engineering
(Published Physical Review Letters, 10 June 2002)

Merely by existing, all physical systems register information. And by evolving dynamically in time, they transform and process that information. The laws of physics determine the amount of information that a physical system can register (number of bits) and the number of elementary logic operations that a system can perform (number of ops). The Universe is a physical system.

The amount of information that the Universe can register and the number of elementary operations that it can have performed over its history are calculated. The Universe can have performed no more than 10^120 ops on 10^90 bits (10^120 bits including gravitational degrees of freedom)


[https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org...]

Does it seem credible to you that the amount of information in our universe can be captured by a fixed amount of storage and processing? If not, why not, and what would need to be explained for this to be more credible?

As the question is phrased, I would say no. If you had asked instead whether there exists some sequence of 0's and 1's that fully describes the universe, I would say yes. But the sequence would be longer than the number of elementary particles in the universe. (Unless it was somehow compressible to a shorter sequence, which seems unlikely.) So storing it within the universe seems a practical impossibility. Furthermore, knowing that such a sequence exists would not mean that you could discover it. For one thing, you would run up against Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.


If the universe as we know it can be captured by a fixed amount of storage and processing, in principle is it deterministic?


Not necessarily. It would have to be true that, in principle, the future states of particles are determined entirely by their current and past states. Quantum mechanics suggests otherwise, that there is some fundamental unpredictability, one might call it randomness, at the subatomic level.

If the universe to date really does contain only a finite amount of information, does this make it more or less plausible that it is:
a) a product of some design process, rather than simply emergent?
b) not unique?


I don't see that the finiteness of the universe is relevant to the question of a designer.

One might argue that a finite sequence is more likely to have a duplicate than an infinite sequence. In fact, if one assumes an infinite number of finite universes, each representable by a finite sequence, then it follows that there must be infinitely many duplicates. This does not mean, however, that every universe would have a duplicate. In fact, there still could be infinitely many unique universes in such a scenario, including ours.

If the processing power of the universe is limited, are there some questions that cannot be answered within the universe itself? How does that influence the way we should classify and evaluate knowledge?


From a computational point of view, there are classical questions that cannot be answered by finite computation, such as the halting problem. I don't see why that would have any effect on epistemology, however. And one can always devise nonsensical questions, such as what is the color of love.

Do you believe that the universe preserves its information? I.e, that the universe's processing could be potentially reversed, if you knew the rules, and enough of its state information? So that you could recreate an ancient manuscript, or a dead brain from the information held in its remnants and the world around it?

No, I do not believe the universe perfectly preserves all information. Such an assertion is equivalent to asserting that one can determine all past states of every particle from their present state. Again, quantum uncertainty seems to eventually erase such information.


I hope these questions may interest. :)
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 4:06:36 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 12:22:06 PM, Stronn wrote:
At 4/21/2016 5:24:24 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Computational capacity of the universe
Seth Lloyd
d"Arbeloff Laboratory for Information Systems and Technology
MIT Department of Mechanical Engineering
(Published Physical Review Letters, 10 June 2002)

Merely by existing, all physical systems register information. And by evolving dynamically in time, they transform and process that information. The laws of physics determine the amount of information that a physical system can register (number of bits) and the number of elementary logic operations that a system can perform (number of ops). The Universe is a physical system.

The amount of information that the Universe can register and the number of elementary operations that it can have performed over its history are calculated. The Universe can have performed no more than 10^120 ops on 10^90 bits (10^120 bits including gravitational degrees of freedom)


[https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org...]

Does it seem credible to you that the amount of information in our universe can be captured by a fixed amount of storage and processing? If not, why not, and what would need to be explained for this to be more credible?

As the question is phrased, I would say no. If you had asked instead whether there exists some sequence of 0's and 1's that fully describes the universe, I would say yes.


WRONG

But the sequence would be longer than the number of elementary particles in the universe. (Unless it was somehow compressible to a shorter sequence, which seems unlikely.) So storing it within the universe seems a practical impossibility. Furthermore, knowing that such a sequence exists would not mean that you could discover it. For one thing, you would run up against Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.


If the universe as we know it can be captured by a fixed amount of storage and processing, in principle is it deterministic?


Not necessarily. It would have to be true that, in principle, the future states of particles are determined entirely by their current and past states. Quantum mechanics suggests otherwise, that there is some fundamental unpredictability, one might call it randomness, at the subatomic level.

If the universe to date really does contain only a finite amount of information, does this make it more or less plausible that it is:
a) a product of some design process, rather than simply emergent?
b) not unique?


I don't see that the finiteness of the universe is relevant to the question of a designer.

One might argue that a finite sequence is more likely to have a duplicate than an infinite sequence. In fact, if one assumes an infinite number of finite universes, each representable by a finite sequence, then it follows that there must be infinitely many duplicates. This does not mean, however, that every universe would have a duplicate. In fact, there still could be infinitely many unique universes in such a scenario, including ours.

If the processing power of the universe is limited, are there some questions that cannot be answered within the universe itself? How does that influence the way we should classify and evaluate knowledge?


From a computational point of view, there are classical questions that cannot be answered by finite computation, such as the halting problem. I don't see why that would have any effect on epistemology, however. And one can always devise nonsensical questions, such as what is the color of love.

Do you believe that the universe preserves its information? I.e, that the universe's processing could be potentially reversed, if you knew the rules, and enough of its state information? So that you could recreate an ancient manuscript, or a dead brain from the information held in its remnants and the world around it?

No, I do not believe the universe perfectly preserves all information. Such an assertion is equivalent to asserting that one can determine all past states of every particle from their present state. Again, quantum uncertainty seems to eventually erase such information.


I hope these questions may interest. :)
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2016 5:15:26 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 5:24:24 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Computational capacity of the universe
Seth Lloyd
d"Arbeloff Laboratory for Information Systems and Technology
MIT Department of Mechanical Engineering
(Published Physical Review Letters, 10 June 2002)

Merely by existing, all physical systems register information. And by evolving dynamically in time, they transform and process that information. The laws of physics determine the amount of information that a physical system can register (number of bits) and the number of elementary logic operations that a system can perform (number of ops). The Universe is a physical system.

The amount of information that the Universe can register and the number of elementary operations that it can have performed over its history are calculated. The Universe can have performed no more than 10^120 ops on 10^90 bits (10^120 bits including gravitational degrees of freedom)


[https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org...]

Does it seem credible to you that the amount of information in our universe can be captured by a fixed amount of storage and processing? If not, why not, and what would need to be explained for this to be more credible?

I find the math credible. It's a formalized way of dealing with energy states by treating them as bits of information.


If the universe as we know it can be captured by a fixed amount of storage and processing, in principle is it deterministic?

There are effects and possible movements that the previous paper doesn't address. And the paper is upper limits. It sets a domain of operations and bits of information but it doesn't state what each bit of that domain will look like.

Non determinism could still be possible by way of radioactive decay and chaotic systems.


If the universe to date really does contain only a finite amount of information, does this make it more or less plausible that it is:
a) a product of some design process, rather than simply emergent?

This is the Science forum. Science has no reliable method of discerning design. The only method available is historical reference.

b) not unique?

I think the initial state of the universe if ran multiple times would produce different universes. Like a double pendulum dropped from the same height in the same conditions the resulting motion would be different each time. But the range of motion is predictable. And That range is like the upper bound being calculated in the paper.


If the processing power of the universe is limited, are there some questions that cannot be answered within the universe itself? How does that influence the way we should classify and evaluate knowledge?

To me, this is intimately tied to the P vs PN problem. If equal, then a smaller universe could compute this universe. Similarly a blackholes information can be represented by it's event horizon. A 2 dimensional shape. It's been suggested a 3 dimensional universe, like ours, could be the result of a 4 dimensional blackhole.

Even if P=NP there will still be some questions unanswerable by universal computation.


Do you believe that the universe preserves its information?

I think the Universe is B theory of time. Where if you can transcend time you will have the information of the universe recorded. I think that recording accounts for the discreetness of the universe. That matter and energy are non-segmental units. Like slides on a projector.

I.e, that the universe's processing could be potentially reversed, if you knew the rules, and enough of its state information?

I don't think so. You could know the states, and the rules and still be unable to accurately rewind the events. You could have a block of lead and uranium. But you wouldn't be able to say when a particular atom decayed.

So that you could recreate an ancient manuscript, or a dead brain from the information held in its remnants and the world around it?

I don't think that can happen from residue. Even though the information in the residue can't be destroyed it is changed in such a way that recreation is impossible.

Like deleting a file on a hard drive. A swipe of the drive makes the file still recoverable. ((mostly because files tend to repeat similar information, hence the ability of lossless compression)) But if you randomly write over the file 12 times, Then the file is unrecoverable.

Of course what happens is what was thought to be random ends up being a pattern and then the file recoverable.

Maybe the events we often see as random, like the double pendulum, drop of water in acoustic field, radioactive decay... maybe they have an unknown pattern emerging from a dimension unbeknownst.


I hope these questions may interest. :)

Technically it wouldn't take much to record the universe. There are digital techniques for automatic error detection and correction. A message is encoded and extra data, parity bits are added. This makes what many consider a holographic universe. I don;t like the holographic term, because the interesting things about holograms is that a piece represents the whole but at a lower resolution. In the popularized holographic universe the universe is more like a manifestation, reflection of code, And I think is better described as Mirage universe.

So if this parity bits were recorded lets say 1 parity to every 4 bits. It would take only 1 dimension to record the universe. Recreating a universe from the parity bits would give 8 possible states for every parity bit. Ad so one of the possible would be the actual universe that was recorded.

Like I said I have no problems with the information of the universe being persistent. Maybe no accessible to humans or technology. But i think it is recorded a-temporally.
keithprosser
Posts: 2,053
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2016 11:40:20 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
There may be a useful analogy with energy, which also cannot be destroyed. Energy ends up as heat and everything ends up at the same temperature. If there is no temperature gradient no further use of the energy is possible, even tho there may be plenty of energy present. If that analogy is appropriate then the problem would be that information is not destroyed but it gets harder and harder to make use of it.

It seems odd that,say, copying a file onto a freshly minted hard disk doesn't increase the amount of information in the universe, but if information cannot be created or destroyed then it must be that we over-value information that is useful to us, skewing our perception.
Feel free to comment or not... I'm just thinking out loud.
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 5:58:04 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 6:28:10 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:

Let's talk maths. You can calculate the succeeding digits of Irrational numbers but you can't predict them.

Of course you can predict them. But you don't have to predict by guessing, you can use a formula to make the best prediction.

What does it mean to "predict"? You can always predict something, it's just that there's a certain probability of being correct about your prediction. I can predict lottery numbers, but I have a low probability of being correct. I can even predict the times of radioactive decay events, but I have a low probability of being correct! I can predict the decimal expansion of irrational numbers and have a high probability of being correct.
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 9:19:11 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 5:24:24 AM, RuvDraba wrote:

Do you believe that the universe preserves its information? I.e, that the universe's processing could be potentially reversed, if you knew the rules, and enough of its state information? So that you could recreate an ancient manuscript, or a dead brain from the information held in its remnants and the world around it?

I hope these questions may interest. :)

The basic logic of infinity means that the universe can't be repeated or copied.
Stronn
Posts: 318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 7:00:26 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 9:19:11 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 4/21/2016 5:24:24 AM, RuvDraba wrote:

Do you believe that the universe preserves its information? I.e, that the universe's processing could be potentially reversed, if you knew the rules, and enough of its state information? So that you could recreate an ancient manuscript, or a dead brain from the information held in its remnants and the world around it?

I hope these questions may interest. :)

The basic logic of infinity means that the universe can't be repeated or copied.

Nothing in logic or mathematics prohibits duplicate infinities. In set theory, for example, one can have two sets, each consisting of the positive integers. Each set is infinite, yet the two sets are duplicates.
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 2:41:37 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 7:00:26 PM, Stronn wrote:
At 4/25/2016 9:19:11 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 4/21/2016 5:24:24 AM, RuvDraba wrote:

Do you believe that the universe preserves its information? I.e, that the universe's processing could be potentially reversed, if you knew the rules, and enough of its state information? So that you could recreate an ancient manuscript, or a dead brain from the information held in its remnants and the world around it?

I hope these questions may interest. :)

The basic logic of infinity means that the universe can't be repeated or copied.

Nothing in logic or mathematics prohibits duplicate infinities. In set theory, for example, one can have two sets, each consisting of the positive integers. Each set is infinite, yet the two sets are duplicates.

The universe is not limited by mathematical paradoxes.
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 2:48:29 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Yeah, the problem with math is you can't actually prove anything. All of math is based on axioms that can never be proven themselves. Axioms are just defined to be true. You can use basically any axioms you want, as long as they don't contradict each other (good luck proving that though). The problem is that the axioms might actually contradict each other because you can't prove that they don't (if your system of axioms is complex enough)!

You assume whatever you want to be true, and then you derive conclusions that are true within that system.
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 2:55:04 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Set theory doesn't prove anything about the "real world". There is no proof that set theory is consistent!
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 3:09:47 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Besides, I can just invent a new set theory by using different axioms instead of the ZF axioms. Things that are true in ZF set theory may be false in the new set theory and vice versa.

Tell me why a result in ZF set theory should apply to the real world, but not my new set theory? What makes ZF set theory special?
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 3:25:57 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
a) a product of some design process, rather than simply emergent?

This is the Science forum. Science has no reliable method of discerning design. The only method available is historical reference.

I don't think that's true.

Design can be determined through a combination or pattern of correlation non causally related data; with abductive reasoning used to discount a reasonable possibility of unknown causal relations, matched with the relative impossibility of chance correlation.

Or, to clarify:

a) Is there a discernible pattern that correlates directly to something completely different?

b) Can you effectively rule out one causing the other?

c) could they correlate by chance?

If Pi, when converted into base 2, and divided into 5 bits; with a basic alphanumeric correlation (A=00000, B=00001, etc), repeated the pattern "we apologize for the inconvenience"), you could probably conclude design because:

a) there is a correlation between a manifest constant of the universe and the english language.

b) It is not plausible, given history, and our knowledge of language, that the value of pi guided, or managed the evolution of english. IE: natural causation.

c) The chances of those digits correlating by random chance; given a plausible search space of different letters, lengths and languages; is sufficiently low to preclude random chance.

This is why repeating patterns of primes is a good indicator of intelligence; because of the correlation, the chances of randomness, and the unlikelihood of random chance generating that data.

"Universal fine tuning", on the hand; has a correlation between life, and what we see in the values; but the same arguments for (b) and (c) don't really apply, because we don't know enough about the universe.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 4:33:03 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/26/2016 3:25:57 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
a) a product of some design process, rather than simply emergent?

This is the Science forum. Science has no reliable method of discerning design. The only method available is historical reference.

I don't think that's true.

Design can be determined through a combination or pattern of correlation non causally related data; with abductive reasoning used to discount a reasonable possibility of unknown causal relations, matched with the relative impossibility of chance correlation.

Or, to clarify:

a) Is there a discernible pattern that correlates directly to something completely different?

b) Can you effectively rule out one causing the other?

c) could they correlate by chance?


If Pi, when converted into base 2, and divided into 5 bits; with a basic alphanumeric correlation (A=00000, B=00001, etc), repeated the pattern "we apologize for the inconvenience"), you could probably conclude design because:

a) there is a correlation between a manifest constant of the universe and the english language.

You mean we know it is designed because we can compare that representation or pattern to a previously accepted known human design item, ie historical reference.

b) It is not plausible, given history, and our knowledge of language, that the value of pi guided, or managed the evolution of english. IE: natural causation.

What you are talking about is encoding. Symbolically representing the data of the pi constant with meaningful symbols. I agree encoding is a sign of intelligent design. But unless it is seen in a known man made item, Scientific consensus will conclude natural phenomenon.


c) The chances of those digits correlating by random chance; given a plausible search space of different letters, lengths and languages; is sufficiently low to preclude random chance.

Yeah, but if you didn't know English, didn't know the letters, had no inclination of it representing pi. You wouldn't be arguing about how it was none randomly aligned English letters.



This is why repeating patterns of primes is a good indicator of intelligence; because of the correlation, the chances of randomness, and the unlikelihood of random chance generating that data.

1. again historical reference to what prime numbers are. And that we as humans have used them to signal our intelligence to presence to others. But if an Alien Race sent signals of S.O.S.. the scientific community would be more apt to a natural event. As they do with the observation of fast burst radio waves. I'm not saying those waves are intelligent origin. Just saying that in the absence of knowing what causes them, despite a mathematical pattern in them, No one takes seriously they are from intelligent design.


"Universal fine tuning", on the hand; has a correlation between life, and what we see in the values; but the same arguments for (b) and (c) don't really apply, because we don't know enough about the universe.

Yes human beings lack enough historical reference to see design in anything but their own hand made stuff.

But When the day comes that a virus and nanomachine are indistinguishable, will scientist then be open to life being intelligently designed? (rhetorical)
keithprosser
Posts: 2,053
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 8:44:09 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Scientists are already open to life being intelligently designed and created. Indeed, some (such as Craig ventner) are already doing it, or taking laying the groundwork for doing it.
Generic engineering -now routine - is another example if intelligent modification of life.
It is the necessity of intelligence (particularly in relation to life v1.0) that most scientists today dispue.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 2:43:24 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/26/2016 4:33:03 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/26/2016 3:25:57 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
a) a product of some design process, rather than simply emergent?

This is the Science forum. Science has no reliable method of discerning design. The only method available is historical reference.

I don't think that's true.

Design can be determined through a combination or pattern of correlation non causally related data; with abductive reasoning used to discount a reasonable possibility of unknown causal relations, matched with the relative impossibility of chance correlation.

Or, to clarify:

a) Is there a discernible pattern that correlates directly to something completely different?

b) Can you effectively rule out one causing the other?

c) could they correlate by chance?


If Pi, when converted into base 2, and divided into 5 bits; with a basic alphanumeric correlation (A=00000, B=00001, etc), repeated the pattern "we apologize for the inconvenience"), you could probably conclude design because:

a) there is a correlation between a manifest constant of the universe and the english language.

You mean we know it is designed because we can compare that representation or pattern to a previously accepted known human design item, ie historical reference.

In what possible way is English a "human design item?" No, it's not a historical reference.

b) It is not plausible, given history, and our knowledge of language, that the value of pi guided, or managed the evolution of english. IE: natural causation.

What you are talking about is encoding. Symbolically representing the data of the pi constant with meaningful symbols. I agree encoding is a sign of intelligent design. But unless it is seen in a known man made item, Scientific consensus will conclude natural phenomenon.

I'm talking about CORRELATION. It's the non-causal abstract relationship between the two things; with no likelihood of random chance that makes it intelligence.

Calling it "encoding", without showing the non-causal relationship, or the likelihood of it, is effectively meaningless because it's somewhat anthropomorphising what you're talking about. Doing so automatically renders your definitions fuzzy, and prone to accidental equivocation; as encoding implies an abstract relationship; and it is that very abstract relationship that you are required to establish.

Having a good reason to believe that there is a causal relationship, rather than abstract, is why most "design" claims are dismissed.


c) The chances of those digits correlating by random chance; given a plausible search space of different letters, lengths and languages; is sufficiently low to preclude random chance.

Yeah, but if you didn't know English, didn't know the letters, had no inclination of it representing pi. You wouldn't be arguing about how it was none randomly aligned English letters.

And? I don't even understand what you're arguing about. If you don't have the information to make a correlation, you can't conclude design. If you do have the information to make a correlation, you can. I don't see why that is particular contentious.

This is why repeating patterns of primes is a good indicator of intelligence; because of the correlation, the chances of randomness, and the unlikelihood of random chance generating that data.

1. again historical reference to what prime numbers are. And that we as humans have used them to signal our intelligence to presence to others. But if an Alien Race sent signals of S.O.S.. the scientific community would be more apt to a natural event. As they do with the observation of fast burst radio waves. I'm not saying those waves are intelligent origin. Just saying that in the absence of knowing what causes them, despite a mathematical pattern in them, No one takes seriously they are from intelligent design.

No. Recognition of primes are nothing to do with historical reference at all. They're a good source of determining intelligence because primes are (1) highly mathematically relevant (2) non-linearly spaced and (3) thus far appear to be non-systematic and non-regular; in that a generalized repeating process or mathematically based repetition can't generate them without intent.

An SOS has neither (1), (2) or (3), and one can imagine some very basic geometric configurations that could plausibly generate them, and because of the chances of (c) occurring are within the realms of probability cannot be definitively used as intelligence.

"Universal fine tuning", on the hand; has a correlation between life, and what we see in the values; but the same arguments for (b) and (c) don't really apply, because we don't know enough about the universe.

Yes human beings lack enough historical reference to see design in anything but their own hand made stuff.

This has NOTHING to do with historical reference, and everything to do with not having enough information about how the universe works to indicate whether (1) the fine tuning is fine tuning, or whether the different factors are causally related (b), or enough information about the universe to appropriately deduce the probability (c).

But When the day comes that a virus and nanomachine are indistinguishable, will scientist then be open to life being intelligently designed? (rhetorical)

Science is open to life being intelligently designer today; with the right evidence. Namely finding a detailed non-causal correlation that can have a causative explanation ruled out, and cannot plausibly be expected to be generated randomly could potentially show life is designed to some degree.

I know you'll probably object to this; given the wholesale of rejection of ID. But the issue is that no evidence other than pointing at stuff and saying "looks designed" is currently presented.

There are obviously caveats, in that we have enough historical evidence to reasonably preclude any form of design at anything above the LUCA level, and a good deal before; and enough reasonable information about abiogenesis to conclude it is a plausible alternative explanation to render design likely unnecessary.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 3:32:05 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/26/2016 2:43:24 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/26/2016 4:33:03 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/26/2016 3:25:57 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
a) a product of some design process, rather than simply emergent?

This is the Science forum. Science has no reliable method of discerning design. The only method available is historical reference.

I don't think that's true.

Design can be determined through a combination or pattern of correlation non causally related data; with abductive reasoning used to discount a reasonable possibility of unknown causal relations, matched with the relative impossibility of chance correlation.

Or, to clarify:

a) Is there a discernible pattern that correlates directly to something completely different?

b) Can you effectively rule out one causing the other?

c) could they correlate by chance?


If Pi, when converted into base 2, and divided into 5 bits; with a basic alphanumeric correlation (A=00000, B=00001, etc), repeated the pattern "we apologize for the inconvenience"), you could probably conclude design because:

a) there is a correlation between a manifest constant of the universe and the english language.

You mean we know it is designed because we can compare that representation or pattern to a previously accepted known human design item, ie historical reference.

In what possible way is English a "human design item?" No, it's not a historical reference.

b) It is not plausible, given history, and our knowledge of language, that the value of pi guided, or managed the evolution of english. IE: natural causation.

What you are talking about is encoding. Symbolically representing the data of the pi constant with meaningful symbols. I agree encoding is a sign of intelligent design. But unless it is seen in a known man made item, Scientific consensus will conclude natural phenomenon.

I'm talking about CORRELATION. It's the non-causal abstract relationship between the two things; with no likelihood of random chance that makes it intelligence.

Calling it "encoding", without showing the non-causal relationship, or the likelihood of it, is effectively meaningless because it's somewhat anthropomorphising what you're talking about. Doing so automatically renders your definitions fuzzy, and prone to accidental equivocation; as encoding implies an abstract relationship; and it is that very abstract relationship that you are required to establish.

Having a good reason to believe that there is a causal relationship, rather than abstract, is why most "design" claims are dismissed.



c) The chances of those digits correlating by random chance; given a plausible search space of different letters, lengths and languages; is sufficiently low to preclude random chance.

Yeah, but if you didn't know English, didn't know the letters, had no inclination of it representing pi. You wouldn't be arguing about how it was none randomly aligned English letters.

And? I don't even understand what you're arguing about. If you don't have the information to make a correlation, you can't conclude design. If you do have the information to make a correlation, you can. I don't see why that is particular contentious.


This is why repeating patterns of primes is a good indicator of intelligence; because of the correlation, the chances of randomness, and the unlikelihood of random chance generating that data.

1. again historical reference to what prime numbers are. And that we as humans have used them to signal our intelligence to presence to others. But if an Alien Race sent signals of S.O.S.. the scientific community would be more apt to a natural event. As they do with the observation of fast burst radio waves. I'm not saying those waves are intelligent origin. Just saying that in the absence of knowing what causes them, despite a mathematical pattern in them, No one takes seriously they are from intelligent design.

No. Recognition of primes are nothing to do with historical reference at all. They're a good source of determining intelligence because primes are (1) highly mathematically relevant (2) non-linearly spaced and (3) thus far appear to be non-systematic and non-regular; in that a generalized repeating process or mathematically based repetition can't generate them without intent.

An SOS has neither (1), (2) or (3), and one can imagine some very basic geometric configurations that could plausibly generate them, and because of the chances of (c) occurring are within the realms of probability cannot be definitively used as intelligence.

"Universal fine tuning", on the hand; has a correlation between life, and what we see in the values; but the same arguments for (b) and (c) don't really apply, because we don't know enough about the universe.

Yes human beings lack enough historical reference to see design in anything but their own hand made stuff.

This has NOTHING to do with historical reference, and everything to do with not having enough information about how the universe works to indicate whether (1) the fine tuning is fine tuning, or whether the different factors are causally related (b), or enough information about the universe to appropriately deduce the probability (c).

But When the day comes that a virus and nanomachine are indistinguishable, will scientist then be open to life being intelligently designed? (rhetorical)

Science is open to life being intelligently designer today; with the right evidence. Namely finding a detailed non-causal correlation that can have a causative explanation ruled out, and cannot plausibly be expected to be generated randomly could potentially show life is designed to some degree.

I know you'll probably object to this; given the wholesale of rejection of ID. But the issue is that no evidence other than pointing at stuff and saying "looks designed" is currently presented.

There are obviously caveats, in that we have enough historical evidence to reasonably preclude any form of design at anything above the LUCA level, and a good deal before; and enough reasonable information about abiogenesis to conclude it is a plausible alternative explanation to render design likely unnecessary.

Ram I'll concede looking for patterns is an indication to design.

But it makes no difference. It doesn't matter how ordered a backbone of RNA is. Or that RNA is an abstract label and handle for other chemicals. You mention statistical odds, but ignore those odds when they are present in anything not man made.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 3:45:48 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 3:32:05 AM, Mhykiel wrote:

Ram I'll concede looking for patterns is an indication to design.

But it makes no difference. It doesn't matter how ordered a backbone of RNA is. Or that RNA is an abstract label and handle for other chemicals. You mention statistical odds, but ignore those odds when they are present in anything not man made.

Lets start off with the fact that RNA isn't abstract; in that the patterns it contains and what it does are casually related by physics and chemistry; unlike things like language, where the pattern of letters and what those letters represent are completely divorced from one another.

Moreover, if you paid attention to my post; statistical odds to explain patterns, are necessary only when a causal relationship cannot be established for that pattern.

As is fairly easy to point out; there is a causal explanation for the patterns, structure and complexity we see. In essence the view of the complexity of life having the appearance of design, does not fulfill criteria (b), or (c) in order to be determined as intelligently orientated.
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2016 8:16:34 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 4/21/2016 5:24:24 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Computational capacity of the universe
Seth Lloyd
d"Arbeloff Laboratory for Information Systems and Technology
MIT Department of Mechanical Engineering
(Published Physical Review Letters, 10 June 2002)

Merely by existing, all physical systems register information. And by evolving dynamically in time, they transform and process that information. The laws of physics determine the amount of information that a physical system can register (number of bits) and the number of elementary logic operations that a system can perform (number of ops). The Universe is a physical system.

The amount of information that the Universe can register and the number of elementary operations that it can have performed over its history are calculated. The Universe can have performed no more than 10^120 ops on 10^90 bits (10^120 bits including gravitational degrees of freedom)


[https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org...]

Does it seem credible to you that the amount of information in our universe can be captured by a fixed amount of storage and processing? If not, why not, and what would need to be explained for this to be more credible?

If the universe as we know it can be captured by a fixed amount of storage and processing, in principle is it deterministic?

If the universe to date really does contain only a finite amount of information, does this make it more or less plausible that it is:
a) a product of some design process, rather than simply emergent?
b) not unique?

If the processing power of the universe is limited, are there some questions that cannot be answered within the universe itself? How does that influence the way we should classify and evaluate knowledge?

Do you believe that the universe preserves its information? I.e, that the universe's processing could be potentially reversed, if you knew the rules, and enough of its state information? So that you could recreate an ancient manuscript, or a dead brain from the information held in its remnants and the world around it?

I hope these questions may interest. :)

Deserves a bump
Meh!