Conputer Code In String Theory Supersimetric Equations

[alexalex]

Hello ! HNY and sorry if this has been posted again!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLvXaclRlHs

http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.0051

"Doubly-even self-dual linear binary error-correcting block code,"
first invented by Claude Shannon in the 1940's, has been discovered
embedded WITHIN the equations of superstring theory!

What do you know about this? Even if supersimetry would turn out to be
correct can you dig through the math and explain what this entails to
a lay persons like me?

Alex.

[Richard Ruquist]

Here is a lay description:

http://www.novaspivack.com/uncategorized/is-the-universe-a-computer-new-evidence-emerges

Is the Universe a Computer? New Evidence Emerges.
March 22nd, 2012
Share on twitterShare on google_plusoneShare on tumblrShare on
emailMore Sharing Services
I haven’t posted in a while, but this is blog-worthy material. I’ve
recently become familiar with the thinking of University of Maryland
physicist, James Gates Jr. Dr. Gates is working on a branch of physics
called supersymmetry. In the process of his work he’s discovered the
presence of what appear to resemble a form of computer code, called
error correcting codes, embedded within, or resulting from, the
equations of supersymmetry that describe fundamental particles.

You can read a non-technical description of what Dr. Gates has
discovered in this article, which I highly recommend.

In the article, Gates asks, “How could we discover whether we live
inside a Matrix? One answer might be ‘Try to detect the presence of
codes in the laws that describe physics.’” And this is precisely what
he has done. Specifically, within the equations of supersymmetry he
has found, quite unexpectedly, what are called “doubly-even self-dual
linear binary error-correcting block codes.” That’s a long-winded
label for codes that are commonly used to remove errors in computer
transmissions, for example to correct errors in a sequence of bits
representing text that has been sent across a wire.

Gates explains, “This unsuspected connection suggests that these codes
may be ubiquitous in nature, and could even be embedded in the essence
of reality. If this is the case, we might have something in common
with the Matrix science-fiction films, which depict a world where
everything human being’s experience is the product of a
virtual-reality-generating computer network.”

Why are these codes hidden in the laws of fundamental particles?
“Could it be that codes, in some deep and fundamental way, control the
structure of our reality?,” he asks. It’s a good question.

If you want to explore further, here is a Youtube video by someone who
is interested in popularizing Dr. Gates’ work, containing an audio
interview that is worth hearing. Here, you can hear Gates describe the
potential significance of his discovery in layman’s terms. The video
then goes on to explain how all of this might be further evidence for
Bostrom’s Simulation Hypothesis (in which it is suggested that the
universe is a computer simulation). (NOTE: The video is a bit annoying
– in particular the melodramatic soundtrack, but it’s still worth
watching in order to get a quick high level overview of what this is
all about, and some of the wild implications).

Now why does this discovery matter? Well it is more than strange and
intriguing that fundamental physics equations that describe the
universe would contain these error correcting codes. Could it mean
that the universe itself is built with error correcting codes in it,
codes that that are just like those used in computers and computer
networks? Did they emerge naturally, or are they artifacts of some
kind of intelligent design? Or do they indicate the universe literally
IS a computer? For example maybe the universe is a cellular automata
machine, or perhaps a loop quantum gravity computer.

Digital Physics – A New Kind of Science
The view that the universe is some kind of computer is called digital
physics – it’s a relatively new niche field within physics that may be
destined for major importance in the future. But these are still early
days.

I’ve been fascinated by the possibility that the universe is a
computer since college, when I first found out about the work of Ed
Fredkin on his theory that the universe is a cellular automaton — for,
example, like John Conway’s Game of Life algorithm (particularly this
article, excerpted from the book Three Scientists and their Gods).

Following this interest, I ended up interning in a supercomputing lab
that was working on testing these possibilites, at MIT, with the
authors of this book on “Cellular Automata Machines.”

Later I had the opportunity to become friends with Stephen Wolfram,
whose magnum opus, “A New Kind of Science” is the ultimate, and also
heaviest, book on this topic.

I asked Stephen about what he thinks about this idea and he said it
is, “a bit like saying ‘there’s a Fibonacci sequence there; this must
be a phenomenon based on rabbits’. Error-correcting codes have a
certain mathematical structure, associated e.g. with sphere packing.
You don’t have to use them to correct errors. But it’s definitely an
amusing thought that one could detect the Matrix by looking for
robustification features of code. Of course, today’s technology/code
rarely has these … because our computers are already incredibly
reliable (and probably getting more so)”

The work of Dr. Gates, is at the very least, an interesting new
development for this field. At best it might turn out to be a very
important clue about the nature of the universe, although it’s very
early and purely theoretical at this point. It will be interesting to
see how this develops.

However, I personally don’t believe the universe will turn out to be a
computer or a computation. Read the next article in this series to
find out why I think Consciousness is Not a Computation.

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

[Roger Clough]

Hi Richard Ruquist

My understanding of Sheldrake's results suggests
to me that the universe is not like a deterministic great computer,
or if it is, the deterministic or mechanical part acts like a filter to
incline random motions to more regular ones
which Sheldrake calls habits or morphic resonances.


[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
1/3/2013
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Richard Ruquist
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2013-01-02, 19:25:06
Subject: Re: Conputer Code In String Theory Supersimetric Equations

Here is a lay description:

http://www.novaspivack.com/uncategorized/is-the-universe-a-computer-new-evidence-emerges

Is the Universe a Computer? New Evidence Emerges.
March 22nd, 2012
Share on twitterShare on google_plusoneShare on tumblrShare on
emailMore Sharing Services

I haven? posted in a while, but this is blog-worthy material. I?e

recently become familiar with the thinking of University of Maryland
physicist, James Gates Jr. Dr. Gates is working on a branch of physics

called supersymmetry. In the process of his work he? discovered the

presence of what appear to resemble a form of computer code, called
error correcting codes, embedded within, or resulting from, the
equations of supersymmetry that describe fundamental particles.

You can read a non-technical description of what Dr. Gates has
discovered in this article, which I highly recommend.

In the article, Gates asks, ?ow could we discover whether we live
inside a Matrix? One answer might be ?ry to detect the presence of
codes in the laws that describe physics.? And this is precisely what

he has done. Specifically, within the equations of supersymmetry he

has found, quite unexpectedly, what are called ?oubly-even self-dual
linear binary error-correcting block codes.? That? a long-winded

label for codes that are commonly used to remove errors in computer
transmissions, for example to correct errors in a sequence of bits
representing text that has been sent across a wire.

Gates explains, ?his unsuspected connection suggests that these codes

may be ubiquitous in nature, and could even be embedded in the essence
of reality. If this is the case, we might have something in common
with the Matrix science-fiction films, which depict a world where

everything human being? experience is the product of a
virtual-reality-generating computer network.?

Why are these codes hidden in the laws of fundamental particles?

?ould it be that codes, in some deep and fundamental way, control the
structure of our reality?,? he asks. It? a good question.

If you want to explore further, here is a Youtube video by someone who

is interested in popularizing Dr. Gates? work, containing an audio

interview that is worth hearing. Here, you can hear Gates describe the

potential significance of his discovery in layman? terms. The video

then goes on to explain how all of this might be further evidence for

Bostrom? Simulation Hypothesis (in which it is suggested that the

universe is a computer simulation). (NOTE: The video is a bit annoying

? in particular the melodramatic soundtrack, but it? still worth

watching in order to get a quick high level overview of what this is
all about, and some of the wild implications).

Now why does this discovery matter? Well it is more than strange and
intriguing that fundamental physics equations that describe the
universe would contain these error correcting codes. Could it mean
that the universe itself is built with error correcting codes in it,
codes that that are just like those used in computers and computer
networks? Did they emerge naturally, or are they artifacts of some
kind of intelligent design? Or do they indicate the universe literally
IS a computer? For example maybe the universe is a cellular automata
machine, or perhaps a loop quantum gravity computer.

Digital Physics ? A New Kind of Science

The view that the universe is some kind of computer is called digital

physics ? it? a relatively new niche field within physics that may be

destined for major importance in the future. But these are still early
days.

I?e been fascinated by the possibility that the universe is a

computer since college, when I first found out about the work of Ed

Fredkin on his theory that the universe is a cellular automaton ? for,
example, like John Conway? Game of Life algorithm (particularly this

article, excerpted from the book Three Scientists and their Gods).

Following this interest, I ended up interning in a supercomputing lab
that was working on testing these possibilites, at MIT, with the

authors of this book on ?ellular Automata Machines.?

Later I had the opportunity to become friends with Stephen Wolfram,

whose magnum opus, ? New Kind of Science? is the ultimate, and also

heaviest, book on this topic.

I asked Stephen about what he thinks about this idea and he said it

is, ? bit like saying ?here? a Fibonacci sequence there; this must
be a phenomenon based on rabbits?. Error-correcting codes have a

certain mathematical structure, associated e.g. with sphere packing.

You don? have to use them to correct errors. But it? definitely an

amusing thought that one could detect the Matrix by looking for

robustification features of code. Of course, today? technology/code
rarely has these ? because our computers are already incredibly
reliable (and probably getting more so)?

The work of Dr. Gates, is at the very least, an interesting new
development for this field. At best it might turn out to be a very

important clue about the nature of the universe, although it? very

early and purely theoretical at this point. It will be interesting to
see how this develops.

However, I personally don? believe the universe will turn out to be a

computer or a computation. Read the next article in this series to
find out why I think Consciousness is Not a Computation.

[Richard Ruquist]

Hi Roger Clough,

Nova Spivack has two linked blogs following the one I copied below in
which he argues that since consciousness is not computable, something
he takes for granted, then consciousness must be even more fundamental
than spacetime. You might find it of interest to read all three linked
articles as to me it sounded a bit like what you and even Sheldrake
have been saying. In the end Nova recommends mindless meditation to
experience pure consciousness. BTW my stichk is that consciousness
comes from discrete compactified space that is arithmetic, in both the
megaverse and in each universe.
Richard

[Roger Clough]

Hi Richard Ruquist

 

Sheldrake and leibniz would offer a more shocking picture, namely that

strings, like all matter, are alive.

 

But Gates is to be congratulated

for excaping from the cult of materialism.

 

 

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]

1/3/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content -----

From: Richard Ruquist

Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2013-01-03, 10:45:01

Subject: Re: a Sheldrake computer:: the universe as a random + mechanism--->habit computer

>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Craig Weinberg]

On Thursday, January 3, 2013 10:45:01 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:

 

BTW my stichk is that consciousness
comes from discrete compactified space that is arithmetic, in both the
megaverse and in each universe.
Richard

Why would consciousness come from discrete compactified space? To me, all that this kind of explanation does is shift the mystery of consciousness from a person to a space. It ascribes the power of feeling and thinking to an arithmetic idea rather than a person, leaving us right back where we started - asking why does an arithmetic idea have thoughts and feelings.

[Bruno Marchal]

That we are in a matrix, even a "natural" one (existing already from
the math of the natural numbers), is a consequence of the comp
hypothesis. With the price that we have to derive physics from N, +
and *.

The comp hypothesis is the hypothesis that I am Turing emulable. It is
an hypothesis in psychology or theology, not in physics.
It is not the hypothesis that there is physical reality and that such
physical reality is Turing emulable.
On the contrary, comp entails that both consciousness and matter are
NOT Turing emulable.
Consciousness and matter emerges from the computable, but are not per
se computable, as they are the view on the computable seen from inside.

I will take a look on the papers, but "finding code" is often easy to
do, and is a fact usually hard to interpret. It would still be amazing
that "nature" use quantum correcting machinery at some fundamental
level. That might be explainable with comp. The measure on the
computational histories can be made higher if there are fundamental
instructions for hunting the white rabbits.

Bruno

>
> On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 3:32 PM, alexalex <alexm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Hello ! HNY and sorry if this has been posted again!
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLvXaclRlHs
>>
>> http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.0051
>>
>> "Doubly-even self-dual linear binary error-correcting block code,"
>> first invented by Claude Shannon in the 1940's, has been discovered
>> embedded WITHIN the equations of superstring theory!
>>
>> What do you know about this? Even if supersimetry would turn out to
>> be
>> correct can you dig through the math and explain what this entails to
>> a lay persons like me?
>>
>> Alex.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups "Everything List" group.

>> To post to this group, send email to everything-
>> li...@googlegroups.com.

>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com
>> .
>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
>> .
>>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com
> .
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
> .
>

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Stephen P. King]

On 1/3/2013 10:22 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
> Hi Richard Ruquist
>
> My understanding of Sheldrake's results suggests
> to me that the universe is not like a deterministic great computer,
> or if it is, the deterministic or mechanical part acts like a filter to
> incline random motions to more regular ones
> which Sheldrake calls habits or morphic resonances.
>
>

Hi,

Could it be that what Rupert is observing is the statistical
effects (in large numbers) of what quantum entanglement implies? ISTM,
that at the quantum level two wave functions that are the same are one
and the same and so forth for similar WFs. I never saw Sheldrake's work
as contradicting any real physical laws, just the prejudices of
classically trained minds.

--
Onward!

Stephen

[Stephen P. King]

On 1/3/2013 12:46 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> It would still be amazing that "nature" use quantum correcting
> machinery at some fundamental level. That might be explainable with
> comp. The measure on the computational histories can be made higher if
> there are fundamental instructions for hunting the white rabbits.

Dear Bruno,

Have you noticed that Pratt's residuation automatically prevents
White Rabbits by only allows new physical events that do not imply
contradictions of previously allowed events? But his idea is based on a
process ontology, not one that is a priori fixed.

--
Onward!

Stephen

[Roger Clough]

Hi Stephen P. King

 

Entanglement is a major part of Sheldrake's ideas, which

also allow for fields within fields, you might be happy to know.

The fields can be mental and social fields, And includes

resonance between fields such as telepathy..

 

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]

1/4/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content -----

From: Stephen P. King

Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2013-01-03, 18:28:26

Subject: Re: a Sheldrake computer:: the universe as a random + mechanism--->habit computer

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Roger Clough]

Hi Craig Weinberg

 

Richard rejects the concept of inextended space.

 

 

[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]

1/4/2013

"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content -----

From: Craig Weinberg

Receiver: everything-list

Time: 2013-01-03, 12:13:16

Subject: Re: a Sheldrake computer:: the universe as a random + mechanism--->habit computer

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/Eq5Ru03zbcEJ.

[Bruno Marchal]

Because we assume the brain works like a computer. Then, no computer can distinguish an arithmetical reality supportinh his personhood from any other reality supporting Turing universality, unless it belongs to a simulation in some normal world(s) supplied by infinitely many corrections (that is we are purposefully failed by liars).

Bruno

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/Eq5Ru03zbcEJ.

To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Bruno Marchal]

The whole 1-person white rabbit problem comes from the fact that the
white rabbits (events/process/beings) are consistent, like dreams, or
like Bf for the Löbian machines.

Bruno



>
> --
> Onward!
>
> Stephen

[Richard Ruquist]

On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>
> On 03 Jan 2013, at 18:13, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, January 3, 2013 10:45:01 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
>
>>
>> BTW my stichk is that consciousness
>> comes from discrete compactified space that is arithmetic, in both the
>> megaverse and in each universe.
>> Richard
>>
>
> Why would consciousness come from discrete compactified space? To me, all
> that this kind of explanation does is shift the mystery of consciousness
> from a person to a space. It ascribes the power of feeling and thinking to
> an arithmetic idea rather than a person, leaving us right back where we
> started - asking why does an arithmetic idea have thoughts and feelings.
>
>
>
>
> Because we assume the brain works like a computer. Then, no computer can
> distinguish an arithmetical reality supportinh his personhood from any other
> reality supporting Turing universality, unless it belongs to a simulation in
> some normal world(s) supplied by infinitely many corrections (that is we are
> purposefully failed by liars).
>
> Bruno
>
>

Many investigators of consciousness hypothesize that consciousness is
not computable and may be the result of Godelian incompleteness. I had
thought that you Bruno were of the same mind. Is that so? The above
paragraph makes me wonder>
Richard

[Craig Weinberg]

On Saturday, January 5, 2013 7:10:13 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 03 Jan 2013, at 18:13, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Thursday, January 3, 2013 10:45:01 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:

 

BTW my stichk is that consciousness
comes from discrete compactified space that is arithmetic, in both the
megaverse and in each universe.
Richard

Why would consciousness come from discrete compactified space? To me, all that this kind of explanation does is shift the mystery of consciousness from a person to a space. It ascribes the power of feeling and thinking to an arithmetic idea rather than a person, leaving us right back where we started - asking why does an arithmetic idea have thoughts and feelings.

Because we assume the brain works like a computer. Then, no computer can distinguish an arithmetical reality supportinh his personhood from any other reality supporting Turing universality, unless it belongs to a simulation in some normal world(s) supplied by infinitely many corrections (that is we are purposefully failed by liars).

So instead of assuming that we are conscious, you assume that the brain is a computer and computation is conscious. Why is that an improvement?

Craig
 

[meekerdb]

On 1/5/2013 10:38 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Saturday, January 5, 2013 7:10:13 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 03 Jan 2013, at 18:13, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Thursday, January 3, 2013 10:45:01 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:

 

BTW my stichk is that consciousness
comes from discrete compactified space that is arithmetic, in both the
megaverse and in each universe.
Richard

Why would consciousness come from discrete compactified space? To me, all that this kind of explanation does is shift the mystery of consciousness from a person to a space. It ascribes the power of feeling and thinking to an arithmetic idea rather than a person, leaving us right back where we started - asking why does an arithmetic idea have thoughts and feelings.

Because we assume the brain works like a computer. Then, no computer can distinguish an arithmetical reality supportinh his personhood from any other reality supporting Turing universality, unless it belongs to a simulation in some normal world(s) supplied by infinitely many corrections (that is we are purposefully failed by liars).

So instead of assuming that we are conscious, you assume that the brain is a computer and computation is conscious. Why is that an improvement?

Because computation is well defined and it implicitly creates modal categories that might model the different categories or degrees of awarness and self-awarness.  So it may make testable predictions.

Brent