Hi Everyone,
so, my background: http://mindey.com/42 -- I always wanted to know its
origin precisely.
The understanding of the origin of Universe(=Everything, Multiverse,
and our Life experience included) was likely never fully successful.
Fundamental obstacle for succeeding in it has been the logical
inconsistency of the concepts "Origin" and "Universe", because an
attempt to explain Everything by Something, makes the Something part
of Everything, which leaves us with "Nothingness", as the only viable
candidate for "Origin".
Universe to us subjectively appears as a complex and diverse
experience. In fact, except for some regularity (which we call laws of
physics), the patterns we see every day appear so complex, that only
something like a universal computer with large memory could possibly
generate it. We had recently even done so by creating 3D computer
games and worlds running on Universal Turing Machines (UTMs) -- our
computers.
From here, we can conclude:
(1) It follows that, _if_ we could come up with a UTM from
"Nothingness", we could explain pretty much everything that is
computable.
Our experiences rely on finite numbers of receptors with limited
granularity (selectivity), and limited lifespan, which seem to imply
finite number of possible experiences (as their Cartesian product) by
a being.
(2) It follows that, our life experience is likely computable.
To come up with a UTM from "Nothingness", let's:
1. assume "Nothingness"
2. conclude "Equidistance"
(because "Nothingness" means equal absence of information regarding
any aspect whatsoever)
3. see the definition of a ball
4. see the computation of Pi number with varying precision, i.e.:
Remember balls from degenerate ones in low-dimensional spaces with
special coordinate systems and weird distance metrics, to quite
standard Euclidean ones, to hypersphere, to the most near-perfect
conceivable ball regading any information aspect whatsoever.
Unfortunately, we don't know if Pi is really equivalent to UTM,
because we had not yet solved the Normality of Pi conjecture, but
assuming it is Normal, to understand how your unique experience of
life could have arisen:
1. assume that your life experience is a finite number
2. conclude that it is in Pi.
However, if Pi is normal, then then the conclusion is not informative
at all, because we will find any finite string in it many times over.
It would be much more informative, if Pi actually is _not_ normal.
Any comments/errors?
Thanks,
Mindey
Related: discussion on Halfbakery:
http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/Explanation_20of_20Origin_20of_20Universe
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Hi Everyone,
so, my background: http://mindey.com/42 -- I always wanted to know its
origin precisely.
The understanding of the origin of Universe(=Everything, Multiverse,
and our Life experience included) was likely never fully successful.
Fundamental obstacle for succeeding in it has been the logical
inconsistency of the concepts "Origin" and "Universe", because an
attempt to explain Everything by Something, makes the Something part
of Everything, which leaves us with "Nothingness", as the only viable
candidate for "Origin".
Universe to us subjectively appears as a complex and diverse
experience. In fact, except for some regularity (which we call laws of
physics), the patterns we see every day appear so complex, that only
something like a universal computer with large memory could possibly
generate it. We had recently even done so by creating 3D computer
games and worlds running on Universal Turing Machines (UTMs) -- our
computers.
From here, we can conclude:
(1) It follows that, _if_ we could come up with a UTM from
"Nothingness", we could explain pretty much everything that is
computable.
Our experiences rely on finite numbers of receptors with limited
granularity (selectivity), and limited lifespan, which seem to imply
finite number of possible experiences (as their Cartesian product) by
a being.
(2) It follows that, our life experience is likely computable.
To come up with a UTM from "Nothingness", let's:
1. assume "Nothingness"
2. conclude "Equidistance"
(because "Nothingness" means equal absence of information regarding
any aspect whatsoever)
3. see the definition of a ball
4. see the computation of Pi number with varying precision, i.e.:
Remember balls from degenerate ones in low-dimensional spaces with
special coordinate systems and weird distance metrics, to quite
standard Euclidean ones, to hypersphere, to the most near-perfect
conceivable ball regading any information aspect whatsoever.
Unfortunately, we don't know if Pi is really equivalent to UTM,
because we had not yet solved the Normality of Pi conjecture,
but
assuming it is Normal, to understand how your unique experience of
life could have arisen:
1. assume that your life experience is a finite number
2. conclude that it is in Pi.
However, if Pi is normal, then then the conclusion is not informative
at all, because we will find any finite string in it many times over.
It would be much more informative, if Pi actually is _not_ normal.
Any comments/errors?
Mindey
Related: discussion on Halfbakery:
http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/Explanation_20of_20Origin_20of_20Universe
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Bruno:is an EMPTY SET indeed nothingness? Does it not include the " S E T " recognizing that it is EMPTY? nothingness may be the CONTENT of the empty set.
Just as a singularity, which has borders to end, measures, characteristics etc.?Nothingness as empty set should be infinite
and include the entire Everything.
I consider the term NOTHINGNESS just as unfathonable, as infinite, or 'ever'.
Bruno,
not in my views!
Why would you deem an empty box "NOTHINGNESS"?
("when all the cigarettes have been smoked")
If we "talk" about nothingness, we render it a "somethingness".
Your 'set' INCLUDES - CONTAINS nothing, not the set itself
turns into it.. Once you can say ANYTHING about the "SET"
it is not nothing.
I need to go further to identify what I cannot identify.
I agree on this.
The set itself is something; even if it is a meta something. Nothing is undefinable; the container of nothing is itself a container and therefore nor nothing; a perspective on nothing (in order to have a point of view) is itself not nothing; perceiving nothing is an act, which requires an actor… something doing the action.
Nothing does not exist, and nothing can be said about non-existence without giving it some form of existence… even the barest essential requirement of a point of view – the “dreamer” doing the “dreaming” entangles the story with all of emergence – a multiverse bowl of spaghetti code perhaps (A Cobol multiverse).
Nothing, of course is a very convenient place holder that is commonly used to denote an empty set, but trying to define it is self-defeating; it is undefinable.
Chris
JM
> it isn't the empty box that is nothing, it's the contents of the box
> I don't see that talking about nothingness renders it into something.
> I could talk about pink unicorns, for example
without....hang on what's the neighing sound outside my window? Excuse me a moment.
--
> There is a "recording" of your life experience and mine in pi, and also in e .
> What breathes fire into the recordings?
A UTM - which has to be instantiated in some sense (not necessairly physical). Somehow this works by takeing one set of numbers relative to another, however the margin of my brain isn't large enough to quite undersand how that works.