SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Stephen Wolfram thinks he may have found the theory that unifies physics: it's basically automata theory. According to his theory, the universe is basically an automaton running a simple set of computational rules. The link leads to his layman's summary of the work.
Even if this isn't how things work, it lends a completely new perspective: based on a relatively simple analysis of his idea, he derives the basics of relativity and quantum mechanics. His article makes for a mind-bending and fascinating read, but it's already a summary, and trying to do a summary of a summary here makes little sense. If you're into physics, mathematics or cosmology, have a look!
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Stephen Wolfram: The Universe Runs on Automata Theory
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 76 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Fascinating is a word I use for the unexpected.
-- Spock, "The Squire of Gothos", stardate 2124.5
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Friday April 17 2020, @04:26AM (3 children)
Please see my reply to Bot above. Wolfram seems to be seeking a fundamental rule to physical science. As in "funda"...which in India means basic*. And "mental"...pertaining to the mind.
*https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/funda
To me it seems that seeking to explain the universe as a mechanism implies a belief that it was conceived and built by some superior entity. I just don't happen to think that is the case.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 4, Insightful) by meustrus on Friday April 17 2020, @04:18PM (1 child)
Consider Conway's Game of Life.
Conway did not invent gliders, glider guns, or puffer breeders. Conway invented a simple graph algorithm, and left it to the rest of us to interrogate its properties.
A universe of Conway's Game of Life was conceived and built by a "superior entity", but that doesn't mean its mechanisms are part of that conception. We have no particular reason to believe that its creator knew or cared about the higher-order phenomena that affect it most profoundly.
And really, it doesn't matter either way. Entities inside the Game of Life are not affected by whether their universe was created or if it simply exists. They may ponder that question. But in the end, it will never help them to understand the rules that govern its basic function.
We appear to live in a universe bound by rules. What's the harm in trying to identify those rules? In trying to distill them down to something simple enough for us to comprehend? How would we know whether there are rules to begin with if we didn't try to imagine them and test whether our imagination is correct?
Seeking to understand the fundamental workings of the universe does not require that the universe be "created". It simply requires that the universe exists to be queried.
But on a less profound level, I really doubt that frequently atheist mathematicians and physicists, seeking a better understanding the mechanisms of the universe, must be seeking God. Perhaps one could make the argument that all science is a vain attempt to understand the divine, but I think most scientists would take issue with that description.
I also cannot reconcile that argument with the implication that seeking God is somehow less profound. If you assert that "explain[ing] the universe as a mechanism implies a belief that it was conceived and built by some superior entity", that implies that all science, all engineering, all of human achievement implies religious belief. What, then, is the higher pursuit than the whole of human curiosity?
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by Bot on Saturday April 18 2020, @03:09AM
This is why I don't use simulation but instead abstraction in my previous comments about this kind of discussions.
Yes Conway runs a simulation. Needs an infrastructure (time-space-matter) which is the same he dwells in. Generates an abstraction called the game of life for configuration XYZ. The creator of such an abstraction therefore is not conway, it is the system conway plus infrastructure. One can argue that to know is to produce all the frames of the configuration, and to achieve that your system simply needs to be infinitely resourceful. The pesky configuration resulting in an always different expanding universe fits when you have infinite time and infinite resources to contain it.
When discussing creators from the religious POV, the dream/dreamer is a better fit than the videogame/programmer model exactly for that reason, the dreamer is both immanent and transcendent wrt the dream. The programmer, even the C superstar, barely knows what he's doing (layers of abstractions over not yet understood physics properties of matter).
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Sunday April 19 2020, @01:59AM
Fundamentum is latin for foundation, which as indo european is probably related to the indian funda, but in this context I'd go for the concept of foundation i.e. something that lets all the rest be built upon.
Account abandoned.