3 ms·

> with analytically predefined series of events. This doesn't make universe less interesting or more predictable. Consider Mandelbrots set, it is fully analyti

by chr1 9y ago

> with analytically predefined series of events. This doesn't make universe less interesting or more predictable. Consider Mandelbrots set, it is fully analytically predefined, but only way to find it's details is to perform the whole calculation. Similarly the universe can be predefined, but the only way of finding its state after some amount of time can be performing a calculation fully equivalent to letting the universe to live for that time.

wruza 9y ago
>amount of time can be performing a calculation fully equivalent to letting the universe to live for that time This one is very interesting since it brings back the question what time really is. Your point involves “metacircular” observer that can only work/simulate as fast as it can, but the definition of “fast” is external to it. Sure, if we simulate predefined-but-calc-required in our universe, then it will take time. But why should we measure it this way? I mean, does calculation process exist at all without something that requires time for it? [Or we’re really talking about the same fundamental thing that lies behind both our and hypothetically deterministic universe.]
- chr1 9y ago
  Say it is possible to calculate future of a sufficiently complex physical system like a person on a Turing machine by knowing the current state of the system. Then, according to this idea, the calculation can not be simplified by using some kind of formula that predicts the final state, and one needs to fully compute all the intermediate states, which means your computation is fully equivalent to that person living for the time for which you want to calculate the final state. So time here is the internal time for the system of your calculation, and not related to the time you take to calculate. This internal time is nothing more than a counter you use, and You can actually stop your calculation, change something in the initial state and calculate again. I find this fascinating because it kind of explains the universe being predictable, and people having free will: everything is predefined, but only way to know what the choice of complex system will be is letting that system to make the choice! If the view that consciousness can be explained without requiring quantum physics is correct, then this is true independently of specifics of simulated/real universe, and is just the way information/computation works. But then maybe Penrose is right, and consciousness can't be calculated on a Turing machine, and we still have lots of interesting science to discover.

by chr1 9y ago

wruza 9y ago

>amount of time can be performing a calculation fully equivalent to letting the universe to live for that time This one is very interesting since it brings back the question what time really is. Your point involves “metacircular” observer that can only work/simulate as fast as it can, but the definition of “fast” is external to it. Sure, if we simulate predefined-but-calc-required in our universe, then it will take time. But why should we measure it this way? I mean, does calculation process exist at all without something that requires time for it? [Or we’re really talking about the same fundamental thing that lies behind both our and hypothetically deterministic universe.]

chr1 9y ago
Say it is possible to calculate future of a sufficiently complex physical system like a person on a Turing machine by knowing the current state of the system. Then, according to this idea, the calculation can not be simplified by using some kind of formula that predicts the final state, and one needs to fully compute all the intermediate states, which means your computation is fully equivalent to that person living for the time for which you want to calculate the final state. So time here is the internal time for the system of your calculation, and not related to the time you take to calculate. This internal time is nothing more than a counter you use, and You can actually stop your calculation, change something in the initial state and calculate again. I find this fascinating because it kind of explains the universe being predictable, and people having free will: everything is predefined, but only way to know what the choice of complex system will be is letting that system to make the choice! If the view that consciousness can be explained without requiring quantum physics is correct, then this is true independently of specifics of simulated/real universe, and is just the way information/computation works. But then maybe Penrose is right, and consciousness can't be calculated on a Turing machine, and we still have lots of interesting science to discover.