Can a big enough number explain everything ?
eighth man
(A Big enough number can explain everything ?)
Has anyone ever thought of describing the universe
as just a large set of numbers. For example a universe
with 1 particle and 2 positions and 2 time intervals
would be described as a table:
Particle Time Position
0 1 0
0 2 1
This universe only lasts 2 time steps and has one
particle. Extrapolating to a real universe with a
about 1000 physical measurements and 200 decimal
precision for each for 10 to the 500 particles etc.
we could get (10 to the power of 1000) numbers;
Or in rearranging the numbers a universe that is a
number with (10 to the power of 1000) decimal places.
By the way all possible universes would be :
10 to the power of (10 to the power of 1000))
or 10^(10^1000).
Physical laws would be just extracted regularity from
all these numbers by deliming areas and relating
areas of numbers.
The universe in this picture is just one large number
chopped up in various ways to related various areas
of regularity.
God is a number. This number is 10^10^10^3.
A 2 hour dvd contains 10^10 numbers. There are
therefore 10^10^10 possible films ever.
I'm doing the same with the universe considering
every concievable measurement at 10 to the minus
100 seconds and meters for all the universe for
all of time etc. (if you need more precision just
put it to 10^4 etc)
Therefore a number with 10 to the 10th power
to the 10th power to 3 comes out. If we line
up the numbers its, still just about that big.
A person in one of these universes is a group of
numbers. All laws are only groupings of numbers
relative to others.
There is no magic anymore in mathematics like
physics thinks because a given universe has some
numbers organized according to a regularity like
1/r^2. It's just one of the combinations.
1) it's strange that physics thinks that math is
magic; after all the 3 body problems are all
really hard , high temp superconductivity is
hard, turbulence is hard etc. So maybe we
perceive magic in some basic formulas because
they casually end up corresponding to reality
sometimes.
2) If the "it from bit" thing is true , then this theory
of mine is relevant, and a good simulation on
computer is real just as matter and where is the
limits at that point ? We can simulate new physics
particles whatever and it is reality ...
We extract a pattern because it is useful.
The concept of pattern is an invention of the mind.
Groups of numbers are just groups of numbers.
In fact there are probably a huge number of
partial patterns and associations that can be
seen as other kinds of particles, forces, interactions
(you can invent as much as you want)
and world views (universes).
If you let a program run that draws on a small
screen and cycles through all the combinations,
then sometimes something like a face will come
out. It is just one of the many combinations.
(like the monkey who ends up writing a novel
after typing for trillion of years etc).
Same idea is for the universe as a number.
It looks as if there is cause and effect, laws and
so on , but it is just one of the combinations.
We are fooled into thinking there are explanations
when it is only an illusion.
A given group of numbers creates the effect
of consciousness. We are only those patterns
of numbers that generate consiousness.
So there you go, the Grand Unified theory
of physics is achieved. You only have two
objects: 1) a large number 2) consciousness
and one cause and effect 3) a given set
of numbers creates consciousness. It is
like a scalar field where a given set creates
our sensation of consciousness. If a theory
then has only one explanation, then it is
just an association, a table associating numbers
with an effect.
Some consequences of this is that the universe
confirms extreme determinisms; in fact it
would seem that there is no free will and we
are kind of like zombies executing a fixed
program. Another consequence is that anything
can occur and it is automatically explained
by being just a combination of numbers:
a big blue sphere can appear out of nowhere
and it needs no explanation because we are
in a sequence of numbers where that corresponding
combination is. It is also true that there could
be some combination of numbers that create effects
we don't know.
This theory is non falsifiable, that is no
experiment can demonstrate that it is false.
In this respect it is like theories that say
"The world is a simulation in a computer of
a higher civilization having completely different
physics" or that "Everything is in our mind and
there is no outside world" etc.
So I should be getting the nobel prize and theoretical
physics is out of work.
mike.staniforth
An alien from planet Zog visited Earth. He went to the British Museum, and
looked at their complete archive collection. He scanned in the entire
contents of each book that they owned, doing an OCR translation in the
process, and storing the result in his 10^n Gbyte pocket memory card. He did
likewise with all the other major reference libraries in the world.
When he returned to Zog, he looked at the contents of his memory card, By
simply regarding the concatenation of all the bytes as a humongous number,
and prefixing a decimal point, he could come up with a fraction (less than
1) that summed up the total of human knowledge. Taking out a stick of pure
Zogulite, he engraved a mark on this stick which was exactly this fraction
along its length.
So, there you have it. A single mark on a stick encompasses the whole of
human knowledge.
"eighth man" <eig...@libero-dot-it.no-spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:4150218f$3...@127.0.0.1...
Norm Dresner
news:2rbkhvF...@uni-berlin.de...
> You may not have heard the following story.
>
> An alien from planet Zog visited Earth. He went to the British Museum, and
> looked at their complete archive collection. He scanned in the entire
> contents of each book that they owned, doing an OCR translation in the
> process, and storing the result in his 10^n Gbyte pocket memory card. He
did
> likewise with all the other major reference libraries in the world.
>
> When he returned to Zog, he looked at the contents of his memory card, By
> simply regarding the concatenation of all the bytes as a humongous number,
> and prefixing a decimal point, he could come up with a fraction (less
than
> 1) that summed up the total of human knowledge. Taking out a stick of pure
> Zogulite, he engraved a mark on this stick which was exactly this fraction
> along its length.
>
> So, there you have it. A single mark on a stick encompasses the whole of
> human knowledge.
>
Well, no .. or at least not exactly. It should be obvious that there is
human knowledge that isn't written down in books. Do you remember what you
did yesterday? Sure, you know it. But it's not in a book., at least not in
the detail you remember unless your blog is excruciatingly precise and
all-encompassing [and then nobody'd want to read it]. There are also many
things in books that are clearly not knowledge -- fiction for example.
Norm
Thomas Mautsch
> Is the universe is a number ?
>
> (A Big enough number can explain everything ?)
>
> Has anyone ever thought of describing the universe
> as just a large set of numbers.
Douglas Adams has! - His answer was {42}. :-)
Problem is, I do not remember the question... ;-)
Mensanator
>From: Thomas Mautsch mau...@math.ethz.ch
>Date: 9/22/2004 3:40 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <slrncl2ej7....@pisano.math.ethz.ch>
The question was:
What do you get when you multiply 6 by 9?
--
Mensanator
Ace of Clubs
ZZBunker
> Is the universe is a number ?
>
> (A Big enough number can explain everything ?)
>
> Has anyone ever thought of describing the universe
> as just a large set of numbers. For example a universe
> with 1 particle and 2 positions and 2 time intervals
> would be described as a table:
Yes, French phycisists thought of that long ago.
It's called the painting-by-numbers universe.
They still it most of the time.
Delivery mail for the governments
that will actually hire them.
But, chemists also thought of filters long ago too.
So all particle positions actually have to be divided
by pi to get the right answers.
jcastro
eighth man wrote:
> Is the universe is a number ?
>
> (A Big enough number can explain everything ?)
No.
>
> Has anyone ever thought of describing the universe
> as just a large set of numbers. For example a universe
> with 1 particle and 2 positions and 2 time intervals
> would be described as a table:
>
> Particle Time Position
>
> 0 1 0
> 0 2 1
>
> This universe only lasts 2 time steps and has one
> particle. Extrapolating to a real universe with a
> about 1000 physical measurements and 200 decimal
> precision for each for 10 to the 500 particles etc.
> we could get (10 to the power of 1000) numbers;
> Or in rearranging the numbers a universe that is a
> number with (10 to the power of 1000) decimal places.
I tried this one once, with slightly more precise numbers; the result
seemed to be even bigger than yours.
But, anyway, all information in and about the universe can be stored
into a realy long string of bytes - the problem is to find another
universe to store this string into...
> Physical laws would be just extracted regularity from
> all these numbers by deliming areas and relating
> areas of numbers.
>
> The universe in this picture is just one large number
> chopped up in various ways to related various areas
> of regularity.
Undemonstrable. To get physical laws from raw information about the
universe, such raw information is needed in the first place. Not doable
in practice, due to limitations in what we can observe of the universe,
and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.
<snip>
> 1) it's strange that physics thinks that math is
> magic; after all the 3 body problems are all
> really hard , high temp superconductivity is
> hard, turbulence is hard etc. So maybe we
> perceive magic in some basic formulas because
> they casually end up corresponding to reality
> sometimes.
AFAIK, no one in physics thinks that math is magic. Some mathematical
formulas can be used to model physical phenomena, some formulas are
elegant in form, but no magic.
<snip>
> This theory is non falsifiable, that is no
> experiment can demonstrate that it is false.
> In this respect it is like theories that say
> "The world is a simulation in a computer of
> a higher civilization having completely different
> physics" or that "Everything is in our mind and
> there is no outside world" etc.
>
> So I should be getting the nobel prize and theoretical
> physics is out of work.
And it is non-demonstrable, for to validate it, one would need to get
complete information about this universe, step out from it to a bigger
universe (big enough to trivially encompass this one), take a really
long time to analyze the information obtained, and get back to this
universe to check previsions and results.
In other words, to prove that this universe is within the Matrix, one
needs to *be* the Matrix, so by definition outside this universe.
Sorry, no Nobel prize, but a degree in Metaphysics is still possible.
José de Castro Arnaud
(going .sigless and hating it)