The Communication Cube


Well, your god has a 286 and mine has a Cray.
I don't even have a god.
Not being able to compute the outcome doesn't mean the universe is unpredictable.
?
The universe may ultimately be computable. We will have to wait and see tho.
With what would you compute it? Would your device be part of this universe, and it's outcome, and your reaction to it? If it's not part of this universe, how would you interact with it?
 
Scale this up to the size of the universe and instead of using binary use a multidmensional whatever as a calculation substrate and the univese is just a giant computer using electrons and nuclear forces to calculate out an answer in EXACTLY the same manner as the wooden machine in the video.
Well, that wooden contraption is a fair representation of how an ALU in a computer's CPU works when it needs to add two numbers. Of course computers these days can do more than simple addition, but that is the start of them. Add an understanding of 2s complement and you can do subtraction as well, repeat and you're doing integer multiplication. Division is hard to do electrically, and tends to require a recipe of operations and conditional loops to do right; even the early ARM chips could do addition, subtraction and multiplication but didn't provide an electrical solution to division.
So, can you EVEN IMAGINE what it would mean for a universe to exist THAT DOES NOT DO CALCULATION AT THE UNIVERSAL SCALE?
Sure. Up until about 1950 you only really needed to emulate the earth and any other occupied planets. Everything can be hard coded for the time being. As I said at the beginning of this discussion, since then they must have had to pause the simulation and upgrade the computer repeatedly to cope with what we're doing, which is an argument against simulation.
What could it possibly mean for a universe to exist THAT DOES NOT HAVE DETERMINISM as part of the design, which is required for calculation?
The universe as it exists already doesn't expose determinism in all situations. It's been a few years since I read Brian Greene's Fabric of the Cosmos, but it documents a situation according to general relativity only I think of passengers on a train accelerating near light speed, where one shoots the other, but if you were to observe it from a train heading in the opposite direction, you'd see the second passenger being shot before the gun is fired.
Does the idea of free will even mean anything at all given the above questions?
Yes, free will is a tricky conundrum, but if you look at it from outside of the box so to speak, but all we can see outside of the box really is probability; most of the time someone will do one thing, but occasionally they'll do another. And really, quantum mechanics depends a lot on probabilities, so in that sense it could just be the exposition of quantum effects.
If the universe is a giant calculator, what was gods question?
According to Douglas Adams the Earth was created to answer the cosmic question of 'what do you mean, 42?'. Although now I say that I can't quite remember how the dolphins and the lab mice relate to that question. I think the question was raised by the Magritheans, famed for their design work on the fjords.
EDIT: Apologies about the last deepity. I thought it was funny.
Me too ;)
 
According to Douglas Adams the Earth was created to answer the cosmic question of 'what do you mean, 42?'. Although now I say that I can't quite remember how the dolphins and the lab mice relate to that question. I think the question was raised by the Magritheans, famed for their design work on the fjords.
I don't remember about the lab mice. But I think the dolphins had nothing to do with the Magritheans ? They simply tried to warn humans of the notice for planet Earth demolition in time for evacuation but we didn't listen to them, so they left before our planet was demolished to build a galactic highway. This is only the very start of The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy. I should reread it some day, now that's been 42 years since its publication.
 
BTW has anyone ever looked into integrated information theory? I doubt that it's really applicable to consciousness but it's pretty cool and fun nonetheless. Kind of reminds me of other fun things such as surreal numbers.
 
Does this mean an electron doesn't travel in a classical way, but instead the probability cloud defines the probability of an electron appearing an dissapearing from that cloud shape?
Yes, that's how quantum tunnelling happens. Inside a chip if you scale everything down far enough and don't shrink the transistors by going into the third dimension, you have to pack everything tighter and tighter. Once you barriers between connections becomes smaller than the probability curve of the electron, then the electron is probibalistically free to hop over that barrier and into an adjacent connection.

The key experiment to observe this in in the double-slit experiment, which was originally done with light (photons) has been repeated with electrons. You end up with an banded interference pattern, which strikes me as essentially probabilistic. But if you turn the intensity down it's clearly formed of individual spots.
 
This talk of probability in our universe has me thinking about its design.

If we believe the Bible, God only had six days to create at least six thousand years worth of content. Yeah, I can see why He chose procedural generation.
 
As I understand it:
when, it kind of seems merely like a limit on our ability to measure stuff.
Nope, an actual limit.
The electron actually exists in an absolute discreet point in time and space.
Only when it needs to be - like to interact with something alse.
People talk about the probability distributions and uncertainty principle as if we live in a soup of just maybes. And yet, these probabilities ALL AVERAGE OUT so precisely and so REPEATABLY that we are make everything from iPhones to the Large Hadron collider that has enough repeatable precision to smash flying groups of atoms against other flying groups of atoms.
They shape the conditions to raise the probabilities as they'd like them to be or, if the probs are really low like in particles colliding, they crank up the number of passings to raise the collisions per time.
And I have to ask my self, just WHAT DO YOU MEAN a particle comes into existence and out of existence?
Like particle and its antiparticle, they sum up to nothing. They come, they cancel each other out.
However, if you can compute it you can predict the outcome.
Earlier you claimed the opposite. Plus you originally gave the condition, that the universe of your question was not deterministic. You don't get to refute my answer with an argument like, when we can do math better, undeterministic becomes deterministic.
 
What could it possibly mean for a universe to exist THAT DOES NOT HAVE DETERMINISM as part of the design, which is required for calculation?
That you couldn't predict the outcome.
Not being able to compute the outcome doesn't mean the universe is unpredictable.
What seems random today may seem deterministic tomorrow if your ability to do math at a greater resolution improves.
However, if you can compute it you can predict the outcome.
Earlier you claimed the opposite. Plus you originally gave the condition, that the universe of your question was not deterministic. You don't get to refute my answer with an argument like, when we can do math better, undeterministic becomes deterministic.
I guess, regarding self-contradiction I misread. Maybe I was thrown off by you mixing absolute with subjective limits without being explicit about it. Plus, to my understanding predictability and computability go hand in hand. With what process do you create a prediction, when not with a computation of some input values based on some axioms?

You want free will and determinism? You can't have both. I'd say, we've got neither. And if we do have one, I'd say it's rather determinism. I'm repeating myself, but Sam Harris comprehensibly explains how there's no such thing as free will. (I should freshen up on his examples/explanation, since whenever I try to reproduce it, it's lost its convincing quality.)
 
I once read an NDE where a guy said he became aware that in the future, there would be synthetic humans, and that they would come to be the ruling class. He said they would be completely biological, like humans, and that the only real difference between them and us was their thought patterns. Humans tend to have random thoughts intrude upon them, but the synthetic humans would have no such problem, being 100% mindful and purpose-driven.

I tried searching for it for hours once to read it again, but apparently it got removed from the internet. Meh, maybe it was just creepypasta. I only bring this up today because "synthetic humans nde" keeps popping up in my search suggestions.

Edit: One more detail I remember: He said a barefoot guy was running from the synthetic humans, and that he wanted to help by lending his shoes, but realized he couldn't because a microchip in the shoes would trace them back to him. It was sort of a future life memory.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I'm going to ignore anything Sam has to say. He is the crazy cat lady of intellectuals.
Well, I don't know of anyone else making an equally good case.

Still, were does a prediction come from if not from computation?
How can you have determinism _and_ free will?
 
I love these kinds of stories.
I mentioned on these forums before, maybe in this very thread, that I had a dream that time in the afterlife ran in the opposite direction of our time. Not meaning that everything there happens backwards, but more like, if you're here, it looks backwards there, but if you're there watching us, we look like the ones going backwards.

It actually made me excited, because it explained how immortality could work without the need for a never-ending universe, nor a never-ending afterlife. Basically you just keep switching between here and there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rSl
So, can you EVEN IMAGINE what it would mean for a universe to exist THAT DOES NOT DO CALCULATION AT THE UNIVERSAL SCALE?
It would look like the slinky, where the bottom does not know what's up until it needs to recalculate.
A bit the same way the space twin comes back younger, instead of aging faster when re-approaching earth.


What could it possibly mean for a universe to exist THAT DOES NOT HAVE DETERMINISM as part of the design, which is required for calculation?
Cause and effect would be really hard to correlate. There would be no guaranteed repeatable methods (but to be honest, we fare well in our universe where it is not guaranteed that the ball bouncing off the wall would not cross the wall on the next bounce, because there is a slight chance it could). Worse would be the human mind, unable to build upon sets of knowledge. There is this Ryouga Hibiki character in the Manga Ranma 1/2 that, if going right 4 times in a block, would suddenly be somewhere else. This is of couse exagerated for comedic effect, however, he will not have developed spacial skills like we have, in order to "feel" or even "understand" spacial configurations, distance and time taken to cross such space. There was this great discussion about it, but I lost the website.

Also about free will:
Well, we, before we move or make a decision, already fired up our synapses like 5 seconds before "deciding" an action, so it might only "appear" to be non-deterministic.
 
Everyone (in common conversation I mean, not physicists) keeps on talking about the uncertainty principle as if it is a computation problem, when, it kind of seems merely like a limit on our ability to measure stuff.
Well, if we can see with our eyes, then if you want to look at an electron, the photon needs to bounce into that electron and then reach our eyes, so like 2 marbles bouncing, it changes trajectory when being "bounced-and-read"

Ahh,,, clear Pyra's for the Pyrasoners. Now I get it!

“He said to Jacob, Let me eat some of that red stuff, because I’m exhausted.” - Genesis 25:30
This bit is what I like to call a Friday afternoon piece.
It was a red clay pot and the content was lentils (and he got a piece of bread too). And the price was his birthright, a bit steep if you ask me.
 
Back
Top