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This discussion has been archived.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.
reintarnation:
Coming back to life as a hillbilly.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday April 22 2020, @11:04AM
> Purpose and meaning are spiritual concepts...
not always. In this case it's mere inference. The universe exhibits an ordered behavior resting on a RNG (well we call random but it's really out of reach plane) that ATM prevents determinism.
As when archeologists see the stones put in an ordered way at stonehenge they wonder at its purpose, so you should do in front of the universe.
And no, as I often say "necessity" is not an answer, because the concept of necessity is borne out of experience, and experience is tied to the universe. In this universe if you put 5 black socks in a drawer with other 5 white ones, and you extract 5 socks, and they are all white, THEN IT IS NECESSARY that the next one is black. Not so in different universes, e.g. a conceptual one where every experience is driven by desire. "So, what the color of the extracted sock would be. master? - mmm red - and red it is". And I am speaking of easily conceivable universes, while a 4d+time universe already has you scratching the head to imagine how a relatively stupid tesseract is shaped.
What they are, and then you become kinda right by invoking spirituality, is metadata. Purpose and meaning is metadata. It resides in its own domain. It is not found by exploration. Because you are a data entity, and consume data, and you either make up a data representation of the meaning or it gets communicated to you. Science has decided that to avoid resorting to god as a cop out for difficult problems (mistake), the data representation of the meaning of the universe is by convention empty (mistake). OK if it helps your little heads deal with your work, but it has become a dogma of scientism. OK we all needed one more religion, right?
>I think any answer to "why we exist" is necessarily manufactured. What I mean by that is that there is no pre-ordained purpose
In the domain of opinions it is an acceptable one. In the domain of proof, it's a relatively arbitrary assumption about the data/metadata distinction you read above.
>No book of scripture, in any religion, asserts one specific purpose of existence
This is a good but not universally valid observation. One can say no book of scripture in any religion, say, explicitly prevents feeding yellow nails to the house pets. Why is that? the answer is obvious.
The bible says "God created man, as part of the universe, and it was good". Do you need to further explain? That would be like explaining why a composer not driven by necessity spends time creating and perfecting a composition, in a world already chock full of media. Why? because the universe with one more good composition is a good thing. It's obvious and so nobody wonders. Why should you wonder about God, then? Genuine interest or the frenzy of a lawyer seeking an escape route to not believe? because, I am not referring to you, but in general I notice the second mindset a lot more than the first. The discussion is always loaded. Interesting data point.
About the predictions, you should get documented, because indeed some stuff, impossible to rationalize statistically even if you acknowledge that failed coincidences are near infinite and not registered by our minds, points at the ability of more or less approximating a future destiny. The ancient writers of the bible which had no issues on these themes basically wrote that god is unbound by destiny, so that the even the predictions uttered by god do not necessarily materialize.
As much as I appreciate your paragraphs on blueness, I must point out that if we were on mars we would probably find the color red calming and maybe blue would be the color we associate to alarm.
Account abandoned.