5 ms·

The Mandelbrot set comes to mind. It has a many aspects one would want from a good universe. Infinite detail. But not "boring". The digits of PI have infinite

by mg 4y ago

The Mandelbrot set comes to mind. It has a many aspects one would want from a good universe. Infinite detail. But not "boring". The digits of PI have infinite detail too, but when you don't know the algorithm itself, they probably look just random. Which would be boring. But the Mandelbrot set exhibits many nice patterns one can learn and reason about. The algorithm that creates the Mandelbrot set can probably be implemented in less than 400 bytes.

zimpenfish 4y ago
I can do you a 276 byte version using `dc`? 2k64sw32sh7sz[.]0:p[,]1:p[:]2:p[o]3:p[]4:p[O]5:p[@]6:p[ ]lz:p5lw/si4 lh/sj0 2-dsxsu0 2-dsysv[0 2-dsxsu[luSalvSblzdsnSq[lqSn0Sq]Sm[laddSoSs LoLslb2* SoSsLoLslbd-lu+Salv+Sbcladlbd+4<mlqd1-Sq0<g]sglgxladlbd* +4 0sr[1sr]st>tLrln;pPlilu+ Sulu2>h]sh lhx[]pljlv+Svlv2>f]sflfx
- zimpenfish 4y ago
  That got a bit mangled - proper version here[1]. [1] https://rjp.is/dcmando.txt https://rjp.is/dcmando.txt
- greenhorn123 4y ago
  This thread is quite interesting, if the universe is that simple does that imply a complex runtime? Because DC itself should probably be taken as part of the universe here as well as the OS and the hardware it all runs on. So then the question becomes what is the absolute minimal hardware and software configuration that you could use to generate a mandelbrot?
  - chriswarbo 4y ago
    > if the universe is that simple does that imply a complex runtime? There is a tradeoff to be made between (algorithmic) information specified as a program/software versus an interpreter/hardware http://www.hutter1.net/publ/ctoex.pdf http://www.hutter1.net/publ/ctoex.pdf However, all we really need is a Turing-complete runtime, which can be very simple, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_110 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_110 https://beza1e1.tuxen.de/articles/accidentally_turing_complete.html https://beza1e1.tuxen.de/articles/accidentally_turing_comple... One easy way to make our universe is to run all possible programs (even if you don't think our universe is computable, we would still end up running simulations which are indistinguishable to arbitrary precision). We can even apply an anthropic argument to this: that the vast majority of programs are not universes conducive to containing life, but we must necessarily find ourselves in one which is. https://www.kurzweilai.net/in-the-beginning-was-the-code https://www.kurzweilai.net/in-the-beginning-was-the-code
  - mg 4y ago
    My feeling is that there is no such thing as a "minimal configuration" when it comes to universes. Because there is no way to evaluate how "minimal" a configuration is. No matter which elementary property you assume the universe to have, one would have to ask "Is that a complex thing?". Is gravity complex? Is an electron complex?
    - guerrilla 4y ago
      This reminds me of all the episodes of Closer to Truth[1] about the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" He's absolutely relentless with that question, over two decades now, asking every single famous philosopher, mathematician and scientist he can find. Here's one from around Season 3 around 2009[2], another from season 12[3] a few years ago and so on. 1. https://www.youtube.com/c/CloserToTruthTV https://www.youtube.com/c/CloserToTruthTV 2. https://youtu.be/cfmewf2DoKU https://youtu.be/cfmewf2DoKU 3. https://youtu.be/YkB-phz_2cA https://youtu.be/YkB-phz_2cA
      - elevaet 4y ago
        This question is maybe the deepest of them all. What a great project, can't wait to check these videos out. My understanding of an answer I've heard is along these lines: If there is truly nothing then that means there are also no bounds/limits/rules, which means there is nothing stopping everything from being. Out of nothing comes the boundless cornucopia of existence, from complete lack of constraints that is nothingness.

by mg 4y ago

zimpenfish 4y ago

I can do you a 276 byte version using `dc`? 2k64sw32sh7sz[.]0:p[,]1:p[:]2:p[o]3:p[]4:p[O]5:p[@]6:p[ ]lz:p5lw/si4 lh/sj0 2-dsxsu0 2-dsysv[0 2-dsxsu[luSalvSblzdsnSq[lqSn0Sq]Sm[laddSoSs LoLslb2* SoSsLoLslbd-lu+Salv+Sbcladlbd+4<mlqd1-Sq0<g]sglgxladlbd* +4 0sr[1sr]st>tLrln;pPlilu+ Sulu2>h]sh lhx[]pljlv+Svlv2>f]sflfx

zimpenfish 4y ago
That got a bit mangled - proper version here[1]. [1] https://rjp.is/dcmando.txt https://rjp.is/dcmando.txt
greenhorn123 4y ago
This thread is quite interesting, if the universe is that simple does that imply a complex runtime? Because DC itself should probably be taken as part of the universe here as well as the OS and the hardware it all runs on. So then the question becomes what is the absolute minimal hardware and software configuration that you could use to generate a mandelbrot?
- chriswarbo 4y ago
  > if the universe is that simple does that imply a complex runtime? There is a tradeoff to be made between (algorithmic) information specified as a program/software versus an interpreter/hardware http://www.hutter1.net/publ/ctoex.pdf http://www.hutter1.net/publ/ctoex.pdf However, all we really need is a Turing-complete runtime, which can be very simple, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_110 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_110 https://beza1e1.tuxen.de/articles/accidentally_turing_complete.html https://beza1e1.tuxen.de/articles/accidentally_turing_comple... One easy way to make our universe is to run all possible programs (even if you don't think our universe is computable, we would still end up running simulations which are indistinguishable to arbitrary precision). We can even apply an anthropic argument to this: that the vast majority of programs are not universes conducive to containing life, but we must necessarily find ourselves in one which is. https://www.kurzweilai.net/in-the-beginning-was-the-code https://www.kurzweilai.net/in-the-beginning-was-the-code
- mg 4y ago
  My feeling is that there is no such thing as a "minimal configuration" when it comes to universes. Because there is no way to evaluate how "minimal" a configuration is. No matter which elementary property you assume the universe to have, one would have to ask "Is that a complex thing?". Is gravity complex? Is an electron complex?
  - guerrilla 4y ago
    This reminds me of all the episodes of Closer to Truth[1] about the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" He's absolutely relentless with that question, over two decades now, asking every single famous philosopher, mathematician and scientist he can find. Here's one from around Season 3 around 2009[2], another from season 12[3] a few years ago and so on. 1. https://www.youtube.com/c/CloserToTruthTV https://www.youtube.com/c/CloserToTruthTV 2. https://youtu.be/cfmewf2DoKU https://youtu.be/cfmewf2DoKU 3. https://youtu.be/YkB-phz_2cA https://youtu.be/YkB-phz_2cA
    - elevaet 4y ago
      This question is maybe the deepest of them all. What a great project, can't wait to check these videos out. My understanding of an answer I've heard is along these lines: If there is truly nothing then that means there are also no bounds/limits/rules, which means there is nothing stopping everything from being. Out of nothing comes the boundless cornucopia of existence, from complete lack of constraints that is nothingness.