3 ms·

Why Are Things?

1 points by jstanley 4y ago

jstanley 4y ago
The most interesting part: > Let U(P, t) be the function that simulates the Universe, where P is the set of inputs and t is time. P might include things like the speed of light, the strength of various forces and the amount of energy in the Universe. The ouput of the function would be the entire state of the Universe starting with the inputs in P at the instant specified by t. > Like in the previous examples, given a (P, t) and a state of the Universe S, the statement U(P, t) = S is either true or false. Actually running the program on a computer will either prove or disprove the statement, but has no bearing on the truth of it. Be it true or false, it always was and always will be regardless of how many times it is proven by running the program. Even if the program isn't run at all. Even if the program is never written down. Anyone living in the Universe defined by the function would have no idea whether or not the simulation is actually run, because the outputs of all definable functions already exist in mathematics, including U. I think this is a pretty interesting way of looking at things. I don't think it can be literally true as stated (i.e. that it is all just U(P,t) ), for 2 reasons: 1.) Quantum mechanics. TFA "doesn't go into details" but asserts that this doesn't matter. I think it does. Unless you make the "P" parameter arbitrarily large, I don't think you can uniquely address outcomes after arbitrarily many quantum "decisions". Actually maybe that doesn't matter. Every possible P parameter "exists" to the same extent, so who cares how large it is? 2.) Relativity. There is no universal "t". Things happen at different times for different observers. Whose "t" are we talking about? However, I don't think that refutes the idea in principle. The U function just needs to be more complicated -- which is fine since all U functions "exist" to the same extent.

3 ms·

Why Are Things?

1 points by jstanley 4y ago

jstanley 4y ago
The most interesting part: > Let U(P, t) be the function that simulates the Universe, where P is the set of inputs and t is time. P might include things like the speed of light, the strength of various forces and the amount of energy in the Universe. The ouput of the function would be the entire state of the Universe starting with the inputs in P at the instant specified by t. > Like in the previous examples, given a (P, t) and a state of the Universe S, the statement U(P, t) = S is either true or false. Actually running the program on a computer will either prove or disprove the statement, but has no bearing on the truth of it. Be it true or false, it always was and always will be regardless of how many times it is proven by running the program. Even if the program isn't run at all. Even if the program is never written down. Anyone living in the Universe defined by the function would have no idea whether or not the simulation is actually run, because the outputs of all definable functions already exist in mathematics, including U. I think this is a pretty interesting way of looking at things. I don't think it can be literally true as stated (i.e. that it is all just U(P,t) ), for 2 reasons: 1.) Quantum mechanics. TFA "doesn't go into details" but asserts that this doesn't matter. I think it does. Unless you make the "P" parameter arbitrarily large, I don't think you can uniquely address outcomes after arbitrarily many quantum "decisions". Actually maybe that doesn't matter. Every possible P parameter "exists" to the same extent, so who cares how large it is? 2.) Relativity. There is no universal "t". Things happen at different times for different observers. Whose "t" are we talking about? However, I don't think that refutes the idea in principle. The U function just needs to be more complicated -- which is fine since all U functions "exist" to the same extent.