7 ms·
i can extrapolate even further and say that everything is a state machine. humans are a state machine, plants are a state machine, reality itself is a state ma
by rantwasp 6y ago
i can extrapolate even further and say that everything is a state machine. humans are a state machine, plants are a state machine, reality itself is a state machine.
we don’t see it like this because of the sheer complexity, but in the end we are a continuous computation that occurs at every moment in time.
- aptxkid 6y agoI don't think this is true. Continuous transition can't be modeled as a state machine as far as I know.
- rantwasp 6y agoi know it to be truth. if you go down deep enough (talking elementary particle deep) everything is discrete.
- ImprobableTruth 6y agoSo, what do you know that physicists don't? Planck time & length is just the limit of what we can measure.
- fenwick67 6y agoCan something exist at 0.5 Planck lengths from another thing?
- AnimalMuppet 6y agoThat is currently unknown. We suspect that the answer is "no", but we don't know.
- SketchySeaBeast 6y agoIsn't the answer yes, but we wouldn't be able to measure it?
- pasquinelli 6y agoWhy would guess the answer is yes then?
- SketchySeaBeast 6y agoThe Planck length is sometimes misconceived as the minimum length of space-time, but this is not accepted by conventional physics, as this would require violation or modification of Lorentz symmetry.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length
- throwaway894345 6y agoGenuine question: how do we know that elementary particles are in fact discrete (as opposed to modes on a space continuum)?
- rantwasp 6y agoAFAIK they are treated as discrete, ie you cannot break it down more. that may change, but they are viewed as discrete
- mhh__ 6y agoI suspect you don't mean mode in the same sense but quantum field theory does model particles as vibrations in a field. But, those particles have, as good as we can measure, infinitesimal volume
- goldenkey 6y agoThat is precisely what quantum fields are, continuous distributions. Coupling is the only reason quanta exist. But propagation is continuous.
- meroes 6y agoIsn't it usually assumed spacetime is not discrete. At the very least there is no proof to say everything is discrete. Just because the universe can do computations doesn't mean it is a state machine.
- rantwasp 6y agostate machine: you have a state that you can describe. you get input, you transform the state, you maybe output something. state transition can also be viewed as input. so i believe that everything is a state machine. everything
- rantwasp 6y agonope. if you want to have your mind blown away look into Wolfram’s cellular automata and more recently his physics project
- mhh__ 6y ago> nope Wolfram isn't a crank but his graph idea is interesting and not much else at the moment.
- rantwasp 6y agoIMHO the man is a genius and the idea is brilliant. it’s the only place i’ve seem a reasonable interpretation of the uncertainty principle.
- mhh__ 6y ago> reasonable How so? Have you done enough quantum mechanics to comment? I don't think I have
- rantwasp 6y agonobody is "doing" quantum mechanics per se. they are applying predictions from a theory that has been around for a while and those predictions work well enough in narrow domains to be useful. i know enough to understand some of the fancy math behind it, but one thing to keep in mind is that what people think of when they say quantum mechanics is the mathematical model we're working with, not the real thing. here, take a look for yourself: https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Documents/some-quantum-mechanical-properties-of-the-wolfram-model.pdf https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Documents/so...
- jhrmnn 6y agoNot in the standard regime of finite state machines. If you allow for infinite continuous state machines and infinitesimal steps, then it’s no problem. Every classical mechanical system is fully specified by positions and velocities. Transitions follow Newtonian mechanics. Every non-relativistic isolated quantum system is specified by the wave function and the transitions follow the Schrödinger equation.
- rantwasp 6y agofor my own clarification purposes: why is finite vs infinite an issue? IMHO, i don’t believe we have truly infinite state unless we’re talking about mathematical abstraction.
- jhrmnn 6y agoDon’t know if it is. But in computer science state machines are usually finite or at least discrete. Time evolution in quantum mechanics is certainly continuous, not discrete. Discrete are only some observables.
- rantwasp 6y agoi think we maybe are mixing measuring with the actual evolution of the state. you cannot observe a quantum system without altering its state. also, there is no such thing as an isolated quantum system. this is true even for classic mechanics but we are cool with it since the measurement error is insignificant compared to what we measure. i believe that the number of states a quantum system goes through is finite, albeit maybe very very large and the way we are treating it is based mostly on the tools we have not what is happening in reality.
- Dylan16807 6y agoIn practice it doesn't matter at all.
- TheOtherHobbes 6y agoBut observables are stochastic, not deterministic.
- mbrodersen 6y ago> Continuous transition Are you sure there is such a thing in reality?
- felixgallo 6y agoHave you ever witnessed an object moving?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- rantwasp 6y agothe numbers of cells your eye perceives movement with it limited. you brain interpolates like crazy (did you know that most of the stuff you see, you actually don’t see? it’s a result of heavy editing done by the brain). so now the question: are you sure that the movement of an object is continuous?
- mbrodersen 6y agoWhat has that got to do with anything? Movies, games etc. all seems to have moving objects. And yet they are all discreet.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- jayd16 6y agoHow are vacuums, pure functions or abstract concepts state machines? Philosophy has some pretty well fleshed out concepts around simple objects (without proper parts) and intrinsic properties as well that I think would contradict this.
- rantwasp 6y agothe short answer that you’re not going to like is that everything you’re describing is a human construction. it therefore exists in the minds of people as a concept. we use it because it’s convenient. a pure function that does not exist anywhere and nobody does not know about effectively does not exist. philosophy is another things that is a human construction. a lot of our lives is lived inside our heads working with things we made up. it’s convention. you don’t get to ignore physics.
- jayd16 6y agoWell I think this is surely a cop out as a state machine is also a concept. Although If you are conceding we can't model all concepts with state machines then I think I'm satisfied.
- rantwasp 6y agohahaha. oh nooo. you’re not satisfied :) the initial discussion was about all physical object. since you cannot have concepts without representing them onto something physical (paper, in the memory of a computer, in brain, etc) it immediately follows that concepts exist only with a state machine substrate. therefore concepts, distilled to their essential components are (insanely large insanely distributed) state machines
- jungletime 6y agoI don't think that's true. Not everything in this world follows from another. In a system, there will be things that are true in that system, that can't be derived from previous axioms. If I remember correctly, Godel proved this.
- rantwasp 6y agonope. everything follow from something else. you cannot literally create something new. you only transform. the Godel fellow proved something else: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_... it has to do with logic and formally proving things.
- jungletime 6y ago"The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an effective procedure (i.e., an algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the arithmetic of natural numbers. " Doesn't it follow that you can't write a program that proves all the true things about natural numbers. Therefore there will be true facts about the arithmetic of natural numbers not derivable from the axioms. That's my reading of it. Basically there will be formulas, you can't get to by following an algorithm from the axioms. But if you lets say randomly stumble on a formula, you can easily prove it works or not. That's my reading of it. So for example, we can't write a program that will find all formulas, like for example. a^2 + b^2 = c^2 But once we have a formula, we can prove that this formula works. Thats my understanding of this Theorem. Correct me if I'm wrong. You certainly can't write a state machine for the halting problem either.
- rantwasp 6y agoso my original claim was that: > i can extrapolate even further and say that everything is a state machine. humans are a state machine, plants are a state machine, reality itself is a state machine. we don’t see it like this because of the sheer complexity, but in the end we are a continuous computation that occurs at every moment in time. Godel incompleteness applies for math, logic, etc but you need to understand that math is human construct. formulas and numbers don't exist in a void. they need a substrate like a human mind or a computer. Also by state machine i mean a system is basically a current state + state transitions. I was not using state machine as a way of modeling and solving a problem. That's a narrow definition of a state machine only applicable within a certain domain. so everything in reality can be seen as a state machine also as an orthogonal side note to the the halting problem: in theory you may conceive of systems and/or programs that will never halt but remember they are theoretical. Eventually, entropy gets to us all so for anything, even ideas of algorithms that may never halt, is temporary and are guaranteed that given enough time they will halt.