- I have here a bean, can you "compute" how the plant will look grown from it??? - Yes, of course, here is some ground, put it in and we'll wait. That doesn't seem fair.
*"Interesting how cosmic explanations / hypothesis consistently mirror technology of the time."* ... Well, it could be that our evolution in technology is cluing us in on the truth?
@@nahCmeR *"You got it backwards. Technology helps explain the Cosmos better, the better the technology the better the explanation."* ... How does that make what I wrote, _"got it backwards?"_
To a certain point, yes our technology assists in exploring cosmos. Though there is no evidence our universe is some sophisticated computer, quite different claim. Once upon a time great thinkers suggested all sorts of explanations consistent with their time. I get the eerie feeling some computer nerds would prefer cosmos is a computer program, since that would give their studies more credence.
My question is if the universe is a computer, why does it have to solve anything? The game of life is an algorithm that just runs with no real purpose other than to be observed. Assuming the universe is a computer, maybe it was setup with a number of parameters, laws and such and let loose simply for the sake of observing what would come out of it.
Yep. Even better the universe could be running all possible computations. Statistically it guarantees our existence, and one doesn’t have to invoke fine tuning!
This is what i wrote: This is inherently the issue or the gift and curse of modern society. When we start thinking the Universe is a computer shows how little we know about ourselves. If i view this from let’s say the window of Zen, I would ask him what if there is no problem in the Universe? All problems is a byproduct of the mind which is basically a computer or a tool we could use. If he feels that man is mind then naturally he looks at the universe as a puzzle or problem that a computer could solve. Is there a calculation for love. If there is no purpose just a playful exploration lots of these ideas fall flat on its face. Why is there something at all and can nothing be just as beautiful
It seems as if mathematics is so used to using numbers to describe things that all they see is numbers and maths. Although i think maths is a good tool to help us understand the universe, i don't think it describes it exactly as it is. Ask a poet to describe the universe and they will do so in such a way that it's from their point of view, their experiences, and the things they enjoy. The same could be said for a musician, take holts planets as an example with that. An artist would paint a universe with colours, shapes, and forms. Everyone has an idea of how things are based on the way they see things, be it in music, writing, maths, art, or their interests and points of view. Neither is really wrong just the language us different for each person. We can understand the things it's made of, the motion and it's dynamics but it no way does it reflect what reality might be.
It doesn't matter if you are a scientist or artist ... because you are ultimately dealing with INFORMATION from the mind of an intelligence. Only an intelligence makes abstract & physical Functions. A Function is simply a SYSTEM that processes inputs into outs ... with clear & obvious PURPOSE, form, properties & ... design. Only an intelligence ... make Functions with INFORMATION. Only an intelligence ... extracts INFORMATION from a Function made by an intelligence. The Laws of Physics are simply common INFORMATION Man has extracted from various types of Functions in the Universe. All expressions art ... are functions ... with INFORMATION that can only come from the Mind of an Intelligence. God did make Man in His likeness with a body & soul ... less than 6 x 1000 years ago. Everything in the Universe ... is a Function ... with information ... from the mind of an intelligence.
Universe is not computer, it’s discrete 3D matrix and all matter in it executes algorithm. Each photon consists of around 10^15 discrete pieces. That is the reason fo discreetness of action, heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, relativity, etc.
It IS a computer managed by AI. A Matrix Game & You’re a player. Go look at the Sun past the glare..5 to 10 seconds. You’ll see it’s a soft light white ball with a blue disk until it’s 20degrees above the horizon. Not everyone can do this. Only Players. Stop eating animals and your frequency will rise to the 5Th Dimension in a couple of weeks. Keep watching the sun every day as long as you want and soon your third eye, pineal gland will open and you’ll know and have access to more information. Inside science is nothing compared to outside the Game. Good luck.
@@bgs03548 we are not players, we are colonies of cells, which are colonies of molecules, which are colonies of atoms, which are colonies of elementary particles, which are colonies of quantum’s of energy. And they are players. You are not a player, you are team. Huge team.
What is the basis for saying a photon has so many pieces? Is this including coordinate data or something? Does apparently empty space have the same or different information density?
It's definitely a computer! Very disappointing that he's thinking about it so wrong. I have a ton of videos about how and why it's a computer on my channel if anyone wants to hear the reality of it.
Language is Art and not science, meaning a word can be Interpreted differently . So words can have many meanings. When science is described using Art. See the problem?
Not to throw any shade on art, but like in art, using vague language can allow a broader set of interpretations and hence larger audience. Stating questions precisely often makes them too easy to conclude. One might even surmise that, like memes, those questions most unanswerable end up becoming the most popular, even if only "elusive" because of poor form. People put so much effort into making comprehensive answers, yet completely skimp on creating careful questions.
True, but time is relative and man made. The term itself, ‘ran like clockwork’ is a human creation. Sun dials, man’s first ‘clock’ are very ancient, the oldest known was dated around 1500 bc, yet I believe they are way older. Some scholars see them as man’s need to control his environment and make sense of it all, but to me they are also a sign of man’s evolutional awakening to their place in the universe, a simulated reality.
If the universe is a computer does it it allow to subsystems like a human to hack itself at its low level? If human is a high physical computational abstraction then it has no chance to destroy own computational basics and even to reach the deep of it.
We can do computer simulations of the Von Karman vortex street, and by analogy there could be an alien computer simulating us. How do they tackle quantum mechanics? We are allowed to ask.
With increasingly sophisticated systems & the more power and things they can encompass and do, the more accurately it'll represent the entire universe's system. Back in the day clocks were the fanciest thing, so we compared everything to a clock. Of course since we're smart creatures we're going to see correlations between more sophisticated systems and the entire universe's system. The universe's system will already have all the features you discover in your sophisticated system; your system's constituents didn't come from nowhere, so don't be too surprised. Also since we're smart we have to imagine much more sophisticated systems than ones we currently have, more than human brains or any computer or clock or other increasingly complex robust system. Priority should be put on finding more commonalities amongst more or all types of systems, not just brains or computers. There's also communication in plants and fungus and how cities and hierarchies develop, and populations of "excellence" versus "incompetence", all have real common trends/features. I'm not sure what use it would be to say the universe is like an ecosystem or society though. Maybe something involving curves will be discovered and become a principle or law. Maybe the way info in the brain and the way matter in the universe orients itself is similar to Feynman's "volcano hole" curve in his explanation of the behaviour of atoms when they get too close. That last sentence was just thinking out loud, have a nice week
"your system's constituents didn't come from nowhere" meaning there is some basic common order and structure and cohesiveness to things, more than we ever seem aware of, and we utilize the processes and order already available to create our inventions
Leibniz's "Monadology" is zero and it's geometric counterpart 0D (and in 2022 also it's quantum zero counterpart SNF holding quarks together). No spatial extension. Zero size. Exact location only. 🔘
A computer is a function. Machines are functions. A function is simply a SYSTEM that processes inputs into outputs and has clear & obvious purpose, form, design & properties which are all INFORMATION. All Functions possess & require INFORMATION to exist & to Function. Everything about the Universe is purpose, form, and INFORMATION .. because the Universe is a Function composed entirely of Functions. A computer is a Function composed entirely of Functions. And only an intelligence makes, maintains, improves, fine tunes Functions. Sir Issac Newton was correct with his Watchmaker Analogy over 300 years ago .. when he said the Universe is like a .... Function composed of Functions and requires a Function Maker to exist & to Function. The Function, & Intelligence Categories ... prove the Universe & Life are functions ... made by a very, very powerful intelligence. So yeah. The Universe is a computer ... that processes inputs into outputs and has clear & obvious purpose, form, design & properties.
In this video, Scott Aaronson discusses the concept of whether the universe can be considered a computer. He begins by stating that the concept of computation is broad and can be applied to any law-governed process. He suggests that a more fruitful question is to consider what kind of computation the universe could be. Aaronson's field of expertise is computational complexity theory, which studies the capabilities and limitations of computers and the resources needed for computations. He explains that computational complexity theory focuses on the scaling of resources as a problem increases in size. If the resources required increase exponentially, the problem is considered infeasible. He gives examples of problems that require astronomical amounts of time to solve, such as generalized chess on a large board or the traveling salesman problem. The distinction between checking a result and finding a result is highlighted, leading to the central unsolved problem of theoretical computer science, the P versus NP question. P represents problems that are feasibly solvable by a digital computer, while NP represents problems for which a solution can be recognized efficiently if given. The question asks whether every problem that can be recognized efficiently also has an efficient way to find a solution. Aaronson explains that this question is fundamental to understanding the nature of computation and its relationship to physics. He introduces the concept of quantum computing, which uses quantum mechanical components and can solve problems like factoring large numbers. This discovery suggests that quantum mechanics expands the limits of what is computable in the physical universe. However, other problems like the traveling salesman problem are believed to be unsolvable given the resources of the physical world. Aaronson concludes by stating that while the question of whether the universe is a computer is still unclear, we do know a lot about the kind of problems the universe can solve if it is considered a computer. Key themes: 1. The nature of computation and its relationship to physics: Aaronson explores the concept of computation and its broad application to any law-governed process. He discusses the central unsolved problem of theoretical computer science, the P versus NP question, which is fundamental to understanding the nature of computation and its relationship to physics. 2. The capabilities and limitations of computers: Aaronson explains computational complexity theory and how it focuses on the scaling of resources as a problem increases in size. He gives examples of problems that require astronomical amounts of time to solve and discusses the distinction between checking a result and finding a result. 3. Quantum computing and the expansion of computability: Aaronson introduces the concept of quantum computing and how it uses quantum mechanical components to solve problems like factoring large numbers. He suggests that quantum mechanics expands the limits of what is computable in the physical universe. Suggested follow-up questions: 1. How does the P versus NP question relate to the concept of computation in the universe? Are there any potential implications for our understanding of physics? 2. Can you provide more examples of problems that are believed to be unsolvable given the resources of the physical world? How do these limitations impact our understanding of computation and the universe as a computer?
The problem I see, with humans conducting such experiments, even though by our own standards, we are brilliant and technically advanced, is that we cannot even begin to know the technology, i.e. power, involved in running a simulation program as big as a universe. There are still many cultures, that if they ever saw a cell phone, something very common to most humans, might run away screaming, may bow to it or to the holder of such a device, or might even destroy the device and kill it’s holder. Point being that general intelligence and cognitive abilities are relative and subject to many things, culture, environment, even moral and religious standards.
The cosmos contains computers (or what humans call computers). If the cosmos is "closed" under naturalism (i.e., everything in the cosmos is the result of naturalistic processes), then whatever a computer does the cosmos can effectively do that too (in fact, it's demonstrable that it did it). So what more do you want? I think the problem is that "computation and computable" are overrated or overly narrow concepts for what computers may do. Is there anything to be gained, pragmatically/scientifically, from thinking of both a brontosaurus and human consciousness as just being (analogous to?) "programs" that "run" in matter/energy? I think there is. At least, I don't think there is any other way of thinking about those things, if one insists on viewing the cosmos as closed under naturalism.
A couple days to read a 400 page book? What are you reading ? I read profound metaphysics and if I speed read i don't actually apprehend any of it, only the superficial level. I can speed read through a news paper -- not scriptures
Whoa he s just staring at him glitch and stuck wondering about the battery computer threshold displaying us. Whats the time relative differential of black holes visualing affecting each other.
This is inherently the issue or the gift and curse of modern society. When we start thinking the Universe is a computer shows how little we know about ourselves. If i view this from let’s say the window of Zen, I would ask him what if there is no problem in the Universe? All problems is a byproduct of the mind which is basically a computer or a tool we could use. If he feels that man is mind then naturally he looks at the universe as a puzzle or problem that a computer could solve. Is there a calculation for love. If there is no purpose just a playful exploration lots of these ideas fall flat on its face. Why is there something at all and can nothing be just as beautiful
Not a word about the fact that the incredible distances will delay any signalling quite a bit. Like 94 billion years from one end of the observable universe to the other since Einstein declared that no information is allowed to go faster than light.. Unless there is a loophole in quantum entanglement 😄 Anyway I think it is pretty mind-boggling that the galaxy filaments looks so similar to the neuron structures in our brain..
The space outside isnt covered by natural enclosure without unknown range of limitation, and unknown computation of entire recognizable logic itself, how they could find the sustainable formation of life, why we can't exactly calculate the full version of creation or even tell the approximate pressumtion in science nature itself, could possibly exemplify to other various structure of ideas
(8:45) *SA: **_"So, I really don't know if the universe is a computer or even what exactly that question means."_* ... The cosmos is not a computer, but it does operate like a *database* or a *hard drive.* For the first 10 billion years, Existence was generating, assimilating, and storing information produced by everything that exists. However, it wasn't until "life" emerged did actual "data computation" begin. Plants, animals, and insects provided high level data processing and analytical data for all preexisting data. *Examples:* Positive and negative were reexplored via predator and prey. matter and antimatter were reexplored as life and death. Hydrogen and helium were reexplored as prokaryotes and eukaryotes Fast forward 3.7 billion years and you now have 8 billion of the most complex structures in the universe (human brains) processing all of the previous inanimate and biological data while generating new, abstract data in the form of "value judgments." *Summary:* The cosmos is just a 93 billion light-years-wide storage device, and humans are the next-level CPU's designated to analyze all of the data. Yes, "WE" are the newly emerged, highly contentious arbitrators of "value" for Existence.
Is the cosmos a computer? Is this another vain sense of how great we are, not unlike our depictions of god as a muscular mature man. And we limit our evolution as we continue to love ourselves, …why bother to change when we and what we do is so perfect.
"We can't actually show that there are problems where you can recognize a solution and yet not find one yourself." 7:42 This says a lot about our current state of knowledge in general by my estimation.
Alive and functional units are computers of different spectrum ,proto to complex states, A funny example -a guy said, I found some dead bullets and alive bullets, This linguistic equation had some meaning.Dead materials make alive units with proto to high complex functions. "Universe as a whole a computer " is a false statement but functional units within universe might be computers when the word computer is defined correctly.
Question of universe being a computer has to do with input and output of a computer; if there is some kind of formulated input into universe that directs the output of physical reality?
His level of thinking is good, they have nothing to mention in their little minds at the same time want to make assumptions for everything ! weird enough ! basically this universe built of building blocks not a whole one system and not computer as the irrationals think "simulation".
It is said here in some of the comments that the game of life is an algorithm that just runs with no real purpose other than to be observed. I would like to argue that life is the result of the unwillingness of self to be by itself (see cytokinesis) and that the purpose of life is thus companionship aka love.
2:20 he states “Crucially we are not interested in whether a computation takes 10 seconds to do or 20 seconds to do”!? What these people say is in the detail! I bet even every “computer” is interested in how fast it goes, let alone the Future trillionaire who cracks it!
They found out the computation of the universe couldn't only be very essential through life and time, they discovered it's very bizarre, variety that they haven't seen and very exciting what most people get the interesting point, they started to be extendedly motivated to compute the rootness of the casuality
Metaphysics Here on earth like it is in heaven. Darkness (business) exists so that stars (light and warmth) have a place to shine in heaven (joy, beauty and harmony). Stars like US don't exist to be sucked out of heaven by a giant black hole in space called "greed" and its ignorance (hate). Also, Love spent billions of years creating this paradise planet lifeboat so that her miraculous works of fine art called "life" have a beautiful place to "be". Good (god) didn't spend so much time creating this paradise planet lifeboat to be depreciated, polluted and destroyed in a brief moment by hostile alien vampires (greed) and their ignorance (hate). We are sparks placed here for a brief moment to accumulate light and warmth (love) so that we can become as bright of a star as we can possibly be...shining in heaven (joy, beauty and harmony). This is accomplished by appreciating this paradise planet lifeboat and the miraculous works of fine art called life that inhabit it. If we extinguish our light and warmth (love) with "greed" and its ignorance (hate)...we become the darkness and emptiness that surrounds the stars. A very cold, dark, lonely, desolate place to be...for eternity.
@@FurlogTheGiant X-Files. For the hostile alien vampires (greed) to comprehend earthling human beings (love)...is like giant a**holes in space trying to comprehend the stars (light and warmth) that they suck out of heaven (joy, beauty and harmony).
@@FurlogTheGiant I was born March 11th in Bethlehem. I'll teach you some Aramaic. Schlama means peace. Malkuth means Heaven. Hubba means love. 3 things beyond your domain and grasp. You're not perspicasious or enlightened. You're just ignorant and rude. Vivitas aka Reality. You're still trying.
Hypothetically a computer can figure out any problem except it can take an infinite amount of time. Time is the paradox of computation. 1 Apple + 1 Apple = 2 Apples However 1 🍎 is one I have in my hand and 1 🍎 is the one Napoleon ate, it's meaningless if we are not accounting for time in mathematics.
Literally ... a computer is a Function composed of Functions. Sir Issac Newton was correct with his Watchmaker Analogy over 300 years ago. Universal Functions fully explains Newton's observation about the Universe. Everything seen & unseen ... is a Function composed of Functions ... and can only be made by a Function maker ( ie intelligence). A Function is simply a SYSTEM ... that processes ... inputs into outputs and has PURPOSE, form, design & properties which are all INFORMATION that every Function possesses & requires to exist & to function. The Universe, Sun, Earth, Atmosphere, air, water, life ... have clear & obvious FUNCTION, purpose, form, design, properties ( INFORMATION). Only an intelligence makes Functions that possess INFORMATION. Only an intelligence extracts INFORMATION from a Function made by an intelligence. The Laws of Physics are simply common INFORMATION that man has extracted from various types of Function in our Universe. Stop believing fake science. We all know for a fact that nature & natural processes can NEVER make & operate the simplest machine. A Machine is a function composed of Functions. But so too is all Life. The three types of machines are mechanical, electrical & molecular ( LIFE ). Abiogenesis, evolution & a 13.7 billions year old Universe is complete BS. A very powerful intelligence ( like God) made the universe & Life.. Either all of the religions are wrong ... or ... there is one religion that has correctly identified the "Almighty" Intelligence that made the Universe & Life and fully explained why?
Perhaps could be seen as an Intelligent system in which energy is generated, circulated and consumed in a proprtionate manner and thus results in different forms of matter. Since all this is done in such an optimal and perfect manner that mathematics comes into play in our observation. That also indicates there's one Almighty who create and regulate this system but what we could see is just different physical phenomenon.
Not saying you're necessarily wrong, but energy can't really be said to be "generated" and "consumed" on the scale of the universe. When we say we generate energy, we really mean we convert energy into a form capable of being stored and/or performing work in the technical sense of the term. It's transformed in a useful way in the process of being "consumed" to carry out this work. Generation/consumption implies the input and output of energy into and out of a system, but the net energy of the universe remains constant. The universe is a closed system in which the same amount of energy is simply changing form and becoming increasingly dispersed (and less useful for carrying out work) as entropy increases. It can't be used to exert a force or perform some function outside of itself, so whatever this intelligent system is doing, its function, at least as far as it pertains to energy, must occur within the universe and would likely be evident in how it manifests as phenomena. In that case, I don't see what's perfect about a universe irreversibly hurdling toward an entropy-driven heat-death.
Somehow, one of his descriptions of "computer" (from traditional computer science), in terms of rigid algorithmic complexity theory (the big O() notation), doesn't seem applicable to the universe (or at least largely applicable). He does mention quantum computing, which goes beyond the traditional analysis of these algorithms. But another is biology, evolution, learning theory. Here one isn't trying to find the "exact" or "maximally optimal" solution. An adequate, proximate solution, that works adequately in a given environment, opens up the space of possibilities. The game of Go is said to have combinatoric complexity greater than than the total number of atoms in the universe. Yet DeepMind was able to develop AlphaGo, which beat the best human, at this game. AlphaGo was initially trained by watching humans play. Then it went beyond them. This was later incarnated as AlphaZero, which learned to play the game from scratch, without humans, but through self play, machine vs. machine. This was followed by MuZero, which started out, not even knowing the rules of the game, but had to learn these along the way. (There is of course, a reward function, which provide the inductive bias, as to what to optimize along the way.). All of this was still done with "traditional" computers (CPU, GPU, TPU's ...). But it's still amazing, a system was able to boostrap itself, into learning something that was not originally in its programming, and even provide novel solutions. This is where today's AI is headed, in terms of being a tool, for new scientific discovery, one of the goals of DeepMind (e.g. Protein Folding). Now imagine a zillion massively parallel molecular experiments, most of them failing, but some succeeding, but succeeding in a spectacular way, evolving its own set of "generative rules" (or inductive biases), that leads to further evolution, its own branch in a growing tree, to the complexity we see today, in biological life. Lee Cronin's assembly theory, is an attempt to give some mathematical rigor to this combinatorial analysis.
![NOSFERATU - Official Trailer [HD] - Only In Theaters December 25](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nulvWqYUM8k/mqdefault.jpg)
Sudh a stupid idea it could only have come from the intelligencia
The answer is (your not going to like it!) is....is....is..... 42!
Well... If it is a Computer, it's a Very Slow One!
...it means: a computer is a mirror-image of our brain, but our brain is a mirror-image of the universe...
🎯
Oh, how pithy.
No no, its mean you have no brain, you are just in a computer.
Photons know when you observe them.
- I have here a bean, can you "compute" how the plant will look grown from it???
- Yes, of course, here is some ground, put it in and we'll wait.
That doesn't seem fair.
Interesting how cosmic explanations / hypothesis consistently mirror technology of the time.
It’s a wheel , no it’s an abacus , no it’s a steam engine
*"Interesting how cosmic explanations / hypothesis consistently mirror technology of the time."*
... Well, it could be that our evolution in technology is cluing us in on the truth?
You got it backwards. Technology helps explain the Cosmos better, the better the technology the better the explanation.
@@nahCmeR *"You got it backwards. Technology helps explain the Cosmos better, the better the technology the better the explanation."*
... How does that make what I wrote, _"got it backwards?"_
To a certain point, yes our technology assists in exploring cosmos. Though there is no evidence our universe is some sophisticated computer, quite different claim. Once upon a time great thinkers suggested all sorts of explanations consistent with their time. I get the eerie feeling some computer nerds would prefer cosmos is a computer program, since that would give their studies more credence.
My question is if the universe is a computer, why does it have to solve anything? The game of life is an algorithm that just runs with no real purpose other than to be observed. Assuming the universe is a computer, maybe it was setup with a number of parameters, laws and such and let loose simply for the sake of observing what would come out of it.
Exactly what I would have said
Yep. Even better the universe could be running all possible computations. Statistically it guarantees our existence, and one doesn’t have to invoke fine tuning!
lol this is exactly what i said .
This is what i wrote:
This is inherently the issue or the gift and curse of modern society. When we start thinking the Universe is a computer shows how little we know about ourselves. If i view this from let’s say the window of Zen, I would ask him what if there is no problem in the Universe? All problems is a byproduct of the mind which is basically a computer or a tool we could use. If he feels that man is mind then naturally he looks at the universe as a puzzle or problem that a computer could solve. Is there a calculation for love. If there is no purpose just a playful exploration lots of these ideas fall flat on its face. Why is there something at all and can nothing be just as beautiful
The universe is not a computer. It is a paint shaker at a Ace Hardware in a town very much like Attumwa, Iowa
It seems as if mathematics is so used to using numbers to describe things that all they see is numbers and maths.
Although i think maths is a good tool to help us understand the universe, i don't think it describes it exactly as it is.
Ask a poet to describe the universe and they will do so in such a way that it's from their point of view, their experiences, and the things they enjoy.
The same could be said for a musician, take holts planets as an example with that.
An artist would paint a universe with colours, shapes, and forms.
Everyone has an idea of how things are based on the way they see things, be it in music, writing, maths, art, or their interests and points of view.
Neither is really wrong just the language us different for each person.
We can understand the things it's made of, the motion and it's dynamics but it no way does it reflect what reality might be.
Then how can we come out of illusion?
how to see reality? or our brains are not capable to watch what is reality how you see this one
Physics is statistics of the world
It doesn't matter if you are a scientist or artist ... because you are ultimately dealing with INFORMATION from the mind of an intelligence.
Only an intelligence makes abstract & physical Functions.
A Function is simply a SYSTEM that processes inputs into outs ... with clear & obvious PURPOSE, form, properties & ... design.
Only an intelligence ... make Functions with INFORMATION.
Only an intelligence ... extracts INFORMATION from a Function made by an intelligence.
The Laws of Physics are simply common INFORMATION Man has extracted from various types of Functions in the Universe.
All expressions art ... are functions ... with INFORMATION that can only come from the Mind of an Intelligence.
God did make Man in His likeness with a body & soul ... less than 6 x 1000 years ago. Everything in the Universe ... is a Function ... with information ... from the mind of an intelligence.
Robert Lawrence Kuhn interviews Robert Lawrence Kuhn from the 90's
Would humanity behave differently if we knew scientifically without question there was no afterlife?
Smoke on that for awhile.
Peace!
\o/
To paraphrase Jaron Lanier, it’s just the latest way to misunderstand the Universe.
Universe is not computer, it’s discrete 3D matrix and all matter in it executes algorithm. Each photon consists of around 10^15 discrete pieces. That is the reason fo discreetness of action, heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, relativity, etc.
very thought provoking!
@@shakilab55 ;)
It IS a computer managed by AI. A Matrix Game & You’re a player. Go look at the Sun past the glare..5 to 10 seconds. You’ll see it’s a soft light white ball with a blue disk until it’s 20degrees above the horizon. Not everyone can do this. Only Players. Stop eating animals and your frequency will rise to the 5Th Dimension in a couple of weeks. Keep watching the sun every day as long as you want and soon your third eye, pineal gland will open and you’ll know and have access to more information. Inside science is nothing compared to outside the Game.
Good luck.
@@bgs03548 we are not players, we are colonies of cells, which are colonies of molecules, which are colonies of atoms, which are colonies of elementary particles, which are colonies of quantum’s of energy. And they are players. You are not a player, you are team. Huge team.
What is the basis for saying a photon has so many pieces? Is this including coordinate data or something? Does apparently empty space have the same or different information density?
It's definitely a computer! Very disappointing that he's thinking about it so wrong. I have a ton of videos about how and why it's a computer on my channel if anyone wants to hear the reality of it.
*What* is a computer?
Language is Art and not science, meaning a word can be Interpreted differently . So words can have many meanings. When science is described using Art. See the problem?
Not to throw any shade on art, but like in art, using vague language can allow a broader set of interpretations and hence larger audience. Stating questions precisely often makes them too easy to conclude. One might even surmise that, like memes, those questions most unanswerable end up becoming the most popular, even if only "elusive" because of poor form. People put so much effort into making comprehensive answers, yet completely skimp on creating careful questions.
@@FalseCogs fact remains. Art describing science is a problem
@@1stPrinciples455 "Problem" is in the goal of the beholder. If ongoing commotion is sought, then confusion is desirable.
@@FalseCogs The fact remains
Back when clocks were the newest and most advanced technology, the universe "ran like clockwork."
Best we can do is extrapolate our current knowledge to the unknown
True, but time is relative and man made. The term itself, ‘ran like clockwork’ is a human creation. Sun dials, man’s first ‘clock’ are very ancient, the oldest known was dated around 1500 bc, yet I believe they are way older. Some scholars see them as man’s need to control his environment and make sense of it all, but to me they are also a sign of man’s evolutional awakening to their place in the universe, a simulated reality.
At the base of reality there is a set of self-correcting zeros and ones
You are simulated in an ancestor simulation. Redefine what it means to be saved. Then be saved.
check out the reflection in the guest's glasses, it looks like the matrix code kinda lol
Stop saying ah, ah, ah every other word. Everyone who hears you talk is thinking this but none of them want to tell you. This is where I step in.
And to think he receives some $100,000/year grant to babble this crap.
Sounds like a pointless nonsensical question where the answer is inane waffle
No
This isn't a "simulation", though, this is "contingent".
If the universe is a computer does it it allow to subsystems like a human to hack itself at its low level?
If human is a high physical computational abstraction then it has no chance to destroy own computational basics and even to reach the deep of it.
Didn’t slime molds solve the salesman problem?
There's nothing more interesting than a rock.
We can do computer simulations of the Von Karman vortex street, and by analogy there could be an alien computer simulating us. How do they tackle quantum mechanics? We are allowed to ask.
I wonder who actually asked that
With increasingly sophisticated systems & the more power and things they can encompass and do, the more accurately it'll represent the entire universe's system. Back in the day clocks were the fanciest thing, so we compared everything to a clock. Of course since we're smart creatures we're going to see correlations between more sophisticated systems and the entire universe's system. The universe's system will already have all the features you discover in your sophisticated system; your system's constituents didn't come from nowhere, so don't be too surprised.
Also since we're smart we have to imagine much more sophisticated systems than ones we currently have, more than human brains or any computer or clock or other increasingly complex robust system.
Priority should be put on finding more commonalities amongst more or all types of systems, not just brains or computers. There's also communication in plants and fungus and how cities and hierarchies develop, and populations of "excellence" versus "incompetence", all have real common trends/features. I'm not sure what use it would be to say the universe is like an ecosystem or society though.
Maybe something involving curves will be discovered and become a principle or law. Maybe the way info in the brain and the way matter in the universe orients itself is similar to Feynman's "volcano hole" curve in his explanation of the behaviour of atoms when they get too close. That last sentence was just thinking out loud, have a nice week
"your system's constituents didn't come from nowhere" meaning there is some basic common order and structure and cohesiveness to things, more than we ever seem aware of, and we utilize the processes and order already available to create our inventions
If man can stop thinking,and analyzing the answers are there. All answers are there before the question arises.
Perhaps questions are nature's way of balancing for the abundance of answers. Having too many could be dangerous.
@@FalseCogs Quite!
Is a physical reality being computed in universe? Mathematics being used to compute physical reality of universe?
Strange, I always imagined it as a timepiece.
The Quantum Gravity Research works on the applicable model of reality based on E8 crystal
Are you guys in a space ship?
Can it be programmed? Is there an API for its operating system? Is its logic binary?
Leibniz's "Monadology" is zero and it's geometric counterpart 0D (and in 2022 also it's quantum zero counterpart SNF holding quarks together).
No spatial extension. Zero size. Exact location only. 🔘
A computer is a function.
Machines are functions.
A function is simply a SYSTEM that processes inputs into outputs and has clear & obvious purpose, form, design & properties which are all INFORMATION.
All Functions possess & require INFORMATION to exist & to Function.
Everything about the Universe is purpose, form, and INFORMATION .. because the Universe is a Function composed entirely of Functions.
A computer is a Function composed entirely of Functions.
And only an intelligence makes, maintains, improves, fine tunes Functions.
Sir Issac Newton was correct with his Watchmaker Analogy over 300 years ago .. when he said the Universe is like a .... Function composed of Functions and requires a Function Maker to exist & to Function.
The Function, & Intelligence Categories ... prove the Universe & Life are functions ... made by a very, very powerful intelligence.
So yeah. The Universe is a computer ... that processes inputs into outputs and has clear & obvious purpose, form, design & properties.
Absolutely not!
In this video, Scott Aaronson discusses the concept of whether the universe can be considered a computer. He begins by stating that the concept of computation is broad and can be applied to any law-governed process. He suggests that a more fruitful question is to consider what kind of computation the universe could be. Aaronson's field of expertise is computational complexity theory, which studies the capabilities and limitations of computers and the resources needed for computations. He explains that computational complexity theory focuses on the scaling of resources as a problem increases in size. If the resources required increase exponentially, the problem is considered infeasible. He gives examples of problems that require astronomical amounts of time to solve, such as generalized chess on a large board or the traveling salesman problem. The distinction between checking a result and finding a result is highlighted, leading to the central unsolved problem of theoretical computer science, the P versus NP question. P represents problems that are feasibly solvable by a digital computer, while NP represents problems for which a solution can be recognized efficiently if given. The question asks whether every problem that can be recognized efficiently also has an efficient way to find a solution. Aaronson explains that this question is fundamental to understanding the nature of computation and its relationship to physics. He introduces the concept of quantum computing, which uses quantum mechanical components and can solve problems like factoring large numbers. This discovery suggests that quantum mechanics expands the limits of what is computable in the physical universe. However, other problems like the traveling salesman problem are believed to be unsolvable given the resources of the physical world. Aaronson concludes by stating that while the question of whether the universe is a computer is still unclear, we do know a lot about the kind of problems the universe can solve if it is considered a computer.
Key themes:
1. The nature of computation and its relationship to physics: Aaronson explores the concept of computation and its broad application to any law-governed process. He discusses the central unsolved problem of theoretical computer science, the P versus NP question, which is fundamental to understanding the nature of computation and its relationship to physics.
2. The capabilities and limitations of computers: Aaronson explains computational complexity theory and how it focuses on the scaling of resources as a problem increases in size. He gives examples of problems that require astronomical amounts of time to solve and discusses the distinction between checking a result and finding a result.
3. Quantum computing and the expansion of computability: Aaronson introduces the concept of quantum computing and how it uses quantum mechanical components to solve problems like factoring large numbers. He suggests that quantum mechanics expands the limits of what is computable in the physical universe.
Suggested follow-up questions:
1. How does the P versus NP question relate to the concept of computation in the universe? Are there any potential implications for our understanding of physics?
2. Can you provide more examples of problems that are believed to be unsolvable given the resources of the physical world? How do these limitations impact our understanding of computation and the universe as a computer?
The problem I see, with humans conducting such experiments, even though by our own standards, we are brilliant and technically advanced, is that we cannot even begin to know the technology, i.e. power, involved in running a simulation program as big as a universe. There are still many cultures, that if they ever saw a cell phone, something very common to most humans, might run away screaming, may bow to it or to the holder of such a device, or might even destroy the device and kill it’s holder. Point being that general intelligence and cognitive abilities are relative and subject to many things, culture, environment, even moral and religious standards.
The cosmos contains computers (or what humans call computers). If the cosmos is "closed" under naturalism (i.e., everything in the cosmos is the result of naturalistic processes), then whatever a computer does the cosmos can effectively do that too (in fact, it's demonstrable that it did it). So what more do you want? I think the problem is that "computation and computable" are overrated or overly narrow concepts for what computers may do. Is there anything to be gained, pragmatically/scientifically, from thinking of both a brontosaurus and human consciousness as just being (analogous to?) "programs" that "run" in matter/energy? I think there is. At least, I don't think there is any other way of thinking about those things, if one insists on viewing the cosmos as closed under naturalism.
Finite to infinity till infinite results....
It’s such an interesting topic, unfortunately it seemed like 40% of the guest’s words were “uh uh uh”. He really needs to join toast masters.
A couple days to read a 400 page book?
What are you reading ? I read profound metaphysics and if I speed read i don't actually apprehend any of it, only the superficial level.
I can speed read through a news paper -- not scriptures
Whatever our most recent technology is, people end up thinking the Universe is like that.
Whoa he s just staring at him glitch and stuck wondering about the battery computer threshold displaying us. Whats the time relative differential of black holes visualing affecting each other.
This is inherently the issue or the gift and curse of modern society. When we start thinking the Universe is a computer shows how little we know about ourselves. If i view this from let’s say the window of Zen, I would ask him what if there is no problem in the Universe? All problems is a byproduct of the mind which is basically a computer or a tool we could use. If he feels that man is mind then naturally he looks at the universe as a puzzle or problem that a computer could solve. Is there a calculation for love. If there is no purpose just a playful exploration lots of these ideas fall flat on its face. Why is there something at all and can nothing be just as beautiful
Not a word about the fact that the incredible distances will delay any signalling quite a bit. Like 94 billion years from one end of the observable universe to the other since Einstein declared that no information is allowed to go faster than light.. Unless there is a loophole in quantum entanglement 😄
Anyway I think it is pretty mind-boggling that the galaxy filaments looks so similar to the neuron structures in our brain..
The space outside isnt covered by natural enclosure without unknown range of limitation, and unknown computation of entire recognizable logic itself, how they could find the sustainable formation of life, why we can't exactly calculate the full version of creation or even tell the approximate pressumtion in science nature itself, could possibly exemplify to other various structure of ideas
(8:45) *SA: **_"So, I really don't know if the universe is a computer or even what exactly that question means."_* ... The cosmos is not a computer, but it does operate like a *database* or a *hard drive.* For the first 10 billion years, Existence was generating, assimilating, and storing information produced by everything that exists. However, it wasn't until "life" emerged did actual "data computation" begin. Plants, animals, and insects provided high level data processing and analytical data for all preexisting data.
*Examples:*
Positive and negative were reexplored via predator and prey.
matter and antimatter were reexplored as life and death.
Hydrogen and helium were reexplored as prokaryotes and eukaryotes
Fast forward 3.7 billion years and you now have 8 billion of the most complex structures in the universe (human brains) processing all of the previous inanimate and biological data while generating new, abstract data in the form of "value judgments."
*Summary:* The cosmos is just a 93 billion light-years-wide storage device, and humans are the next-level CPU's designated to analyze all of the data. Yes, "WE" are the newly emerged, highly contentious arbitrators of "value" for Existence.
what is cosmos resolution? 4K? 8K? 128K? :D
Depends on the size of the screen, obviously.
You mean, Cosmos is a computer that created Life that further created a human which thinks that cosmos is a computer?
Every process in nature is computational until you get down to the quantum level which yields some conundrums for computationalusm.
Is the cosmos a computer? Is this another vain sense of how great we are, not unlike our depictions of god as a muscular mature man. And we limit our evolution as we continue to love ourselves, …why bother to change when we and what we do is so perfect.
The brain is a computer that we know nothing about, Tesla said we will move forward when we look inside the brain.
At first blush I see the question as nonsensical. A better question might be, “Is the universe a computation?”
Depends on what you mean by cosmos, which is meaningless absent a clear definition.
So, "connecting the dots" can be as hard as a traveling salesman problem? ;)
No it isn't. It's just a bunch a rocks and we live on one of them.
In what universe do people read a 400 page book in two days?
If the universe is is infinite, and on this one planet, there are more than 6 billion possibilities?
"We can't actually show that there are problems where you can recognize a solution and yet not find one yourself." 7:42
This says a lot about our current state of knowledge in general by my estimation.
What’s a universe
any papers on this????? interesting papers?????
6:57 problem with modern mathematics
This was a totally useless discussion.
This Concept Makes Sense.
So many deep questions lol
Scott sounds EXACTLY like the infamous mystery caller to Art Bell regarding area 51. Just saying.
Time to read GREGORY BATESON and comprehend his definition of MIND...
Alive and functional units are computers of different spectrum ,proto to complex states,
A funny example -a guy said, I found some dead bullets and alive bullets,
This linguistic equation had some meaning.Dead materials make alive units with proto to high complex functions.
"Universe as a whole a computer " is a false statement but functional units within universe might be computers when the word computer is defined correctly.
0*
The problem is we give such a powerful name to this milestone invention
Question of universe being a computer has to do with input and output of a computer; if there is some kind of formulated input into universe that directs the output of physical reality?
His level of thinking is good, they have nothing to mention in their little minds at the same time want to make assumptions for everything ! weird enough !
basically this universe built of building blocks not a whole one system and not computer as the irrationals think "simulation".
It is said here in some of the comments that the game of life is an algorithm that just runs with no real purpose other than to be observed.
I would like to argue that life is the result of the unwillingness of self to be by itself (see cytokinesis) and that the purpose of life is thus companionship aka love.
2:20 he states “Crucially we are not interested in whether a computation takes 10 seconds to do or 20 seconds to do”!? What these people say is in the detail! I bet even every “computer” is interested in how fast it goes, let alone the Future trillionaire who cracks it!
They found out the computation of the universe couldn't only be very essential through life and time, they discovered it's very bizarre, variety that they haven't seen and very exciting what most people get the interesting point, they started to be extendedly motivated to compute the rootness of the casuality
I think where we live is ultimate multiverse anything you think it can be there
Metaphysics
Here on earth like it is in heaven.
Darkness (business) exists so that stars (light and warmth) have a place to shine in heaven (joy, beauty and harmony).
Stars like US don't exist to be sucked out of heaven by a giant black hole in space called "greed" and its ignorance (hate).
Also, Love spent billions of years creating this paradise planet lifeboat so that her miraculous works of fine art called "life" have a beautiful place to "be".
Good (god) didn't spend so much time creating this paradise planet lifeboat to be depreciated, polluted and destroyed in a brief moment by hostile alien vampires (greed) and their ignorance (hate).
We are sparks placed here for a brief moment to accumulate light and warmth (love) so that we can become as bright of a star as we can possibly be...shining in heaven (joy, beauty and harmony).
This is accomplished by appreciating this paradise planet lifeboat and the miraculous works of fine art called life that inhabit it.
If we extinguish our light and warmth (love) with "greed" and its ignorance (hate)...we become the darkness and emptiness that surrounds the stars.
A very cold, dark, lonely, desolate place to be...for eternity.
Beautiful.
What a load of delusion nonsense
@@FurlogTheGiant X-Files. For the hostile alien vampires (greed) to comprehend earthling human beings (love)...is like giant a**holes in space trying to comprehend the stars (light and warmth) that they suck out of heaven (joy, beauty and harmony).
@@FurlogTheGiant I was born March 11th in Bethlehem. I'll teach you some Aramaic. Schlama means peace. Malkuth means Heaven. Hubba means love. 3 things beyond your domain and grasp. You're not perspicasious or enlightened. You're just ignorant and rude. Vivitas aka Reality. You're still trying.
@@stevecoley8365 dont you ever shut up?
Tempted to watch The Matrix :)
Hypothetically a computer can figure out any problem except it can take an infinite amount of time. Time is the paradox of computation.
1 Apple + 1 Apple = 2 Apples
However 1 🍎 is one I have in my hand and 1 🍎 is the one Napoleon ate, it's meaningless if we are not accounting for time in mathematics.
If it requires an infinite amount of time, then it can’t solve the problem.
Literally ... a computer is a Function composed of Functions.
Sir Issac Newton was correct with his Watchmaker Analogy over 300 years ago. Universal Functions fully explains Newton's observation about the Universe. Everything seen & unseen ... is a Function composed of Functions ... and can only be made by a Function maker ( ie intelligence).
A Function is simply a SYSTEM ... that processes ... inputs into outputs and has PURPOSE, form, design & properties which are all INFORMATION that every Function possesses & requires to exist & to function.
The Universe, Sun, Earth, Atmosphere, air, water, life ... have clear & obvious FUNCTION, purpose, form, design, properties ( INFORMATION).
Only an intelligence makes Functions that possess INFORMATION.
Only an intelligence extracts INFORMATION from a Function made by an intelligence.
The Laws of Physics are simply common INFORMATION that man has extracted from various types of Function in our Universe.
Stop believing fake science. We all know for a fact that nature & natural processes can NEVER make & operate the simplest machine. A Machine is a function composed of Functions. But so too is all Life. The three types of machines are mechanical, electrical & molecular ( LIFE ).
Abiogenesis, evolution & a 13.7 billions year old Universe is complete BS. A very powerful intelligence ( like God) made the universe & Life.. Either all of the religions are wrong ... or ... there is one religion that has correctly identified the "Almighty" Intelligence that made the Universe & Life and fully explained why?
Perhaps could be seen as an Intelligent system in which energy is generated, circulated and consumed in a proprtionate manner and thus results in different forms of matter. Since all this is done in such an optimal and perfect manner that mathematics comes into play in our observation. That also indicates there's one Almighty who create and regulate this system but what we could see is just different physical phenomenon.
Not saying you're necessarily wrong, but energy can't really be said to be "generated" and "consumed" on the scale of the universe. When we say we generate energy, we really mean we convert energy into a form capable of being stored and/or performing work in the technical sense of the term. It's transformed in a useful way in the process of being "consumed" to carry out this work. Generation/consumption implies the input and output of energy into and out of a system, but the net energy of the universe remains constant. The universe is a closed system in which the same amount of energy is simply changing form and becoming increasingly dispersed (and less useful for carrying out work) as entropy increases. It can't be used to exert a force or perform some function outside of itself, so whatever this intelligent system is doing, its function, at least as far as it pertains to energy, must occur within the universe and would likely be evident in how it manifests as phenomena. In that case, I don't see what's perfect about a universe irreversibly hurdling toward an entropy-driven heat-death.
Perhaps we are looking at entropy in the wrong way. Rather than calling a heat death perhaps we should call it what it is, harmony.
The questions should've been, are we in a simulation?
Simulation of what and who is " we"? You are strictly on your own titch, there is no " we"
Correct, and simulation needs a guidance of algorithms and algorithmic functional systems are computers of different kind.
Nah it just seems like a simulation because it has a unreal fuzzy nature.... its all a dream my friends, hermeticism
Somehow, one of his descriptions of "computer" (from traditional computer science), in terms of rigid algorithmic complexity theory (the big O() notation), doesn't seem applicable to the universe (or at least largely applicable). He does mention quantum computing, which goes beyond the traditional analysis of these algorithms. But another is biology, evolution, learning theory. Here one isn't trying to find the "exact" or "maximally optimal" solution. An adequate, proximate solution, that works adequately in a given environment, opens up the space of possibilities.
The game of Go is said to have combinatoric complexity greater than than the total number of atoms in the universe. Yet DeepMind was able to develop AlphaGo, which beat the best human, at this game. AlphaGo was initially trained by watching humans play. Then it went beyond them. This was later incarnated as AlphaZero, which learned to play the game from scratch, without humans, but through self play, machine vs. machine. This was followed by MuZero, which started out, not even knowing the rules of the game, but had to learn these along the way. (There is of course, a reward function, which provide the inductive bias, as to what to optimize along the way.). All of this was still done with "traditional" computers (CPU, GPU, TPU's ...). But it's still amazing, a system was able to boostrap itself, into learning something that was not originally in its programming, and even provide novel solutions. This is where today's AI is headed, in terms of being a tool, for new scientific discovery, one of the goals of DeepMind (e.g. Protein Folding).
Now imagine a zillion massively parallel molecular experiments, most of them failing, but some succeeding, but succeeding in a spectacular way, evolving its own set of "generative rules" (or inductive biases), that leads to further evolution, its own branch in a growing tree, to the complexity we see today, in biological life. Lee Cronin's assembly theory, is an attempt to give some mathematical rigor to this combinatorial analysis.