6 ms·
Here - I'll explain it to you (and what atoms and particles and molecules etc... are). They're human abstractions. Particles don't behave like particles because
by photon_lines 3y ago
Here - I'll explain it to you (and what atoms and particles and molecules etc... are). They're human abstractions. Particles don't behave like particles because the programmer sat down and thought extremely hard how to create a universe with the best amount of variation and dynamics and complexity using the least amount of resources (i.e. compute power). Instead of modeling individual point particles and their trajectories at each time instance at each point in space - it programmed the universe instead in terms of particle trajectories and their dynamics (i.e. the universe only computes probabilities and probabilistic amplitudes for quantized events). Humans think of this behavior as being modelled as some sort of united 'field' but just like anything else this is also an abstraction. The dynamics and edges are there to make it possible to perform further information compression which plays a vital component in terms of the universe's evolution (i.e. the universe is an infinitely recursive function and the life forms within it are vital in enabling it to perform recursive compression state space transitions and to optimize its own information exchange dynamics).
- MavropaliasG 3y agoSo they didn't use an object-oriented programming language, they used a functional programming language.
- photon_lines 3y agoYes, and that's precisely my hypothesis :)
- romusha 3y agoShould have stated in the post that it's your hypothesis
- photon_lines 3y agoWell...sort of. The last part is my hypothesis. The first part isn't. Particles don't have a trajectory (location and momentum) within spacetime in the normal way we think of them as having. This has been known for a very long time :)
- schneems 3y agoEasier to parallelize and without all the side effects, which only occur when trying to directly observe them.
- edgyquant 3y agoNo they used the equivalent of a crazy, maybe infinitely, dense “bit” and all “programming” is things invented by the human brain to model this unknowable “objective” architecture. The universe isn’t actually a computer and even if it is it’s a computer so beyond us that computer science isn’t adequate to describe it.
- meitham 3y agoFunctional lisp I think God used
- gpderetta 3y agoNominally. In reality most of it is just a bunch of perl scripts stiched together.
- User23 3y agoComputation is a human abstraction. If you want to claim the universe computes anything you’ve got a big metaphysical mountain to climb.
- DustinBrett 3y agoStephen Wolfram has entered the chat
- devwastaken 3y agoComputation isnt a human concept, it's as natural as mathematics. It's something to be discovered, it can only work in certain ways as defined by nature.
- pphysch 3y agoMathematics is not natural either, and it's definitely not "discovered" implying it exists outside of (human) thought.
- photon_lines 3y agoSorry but I disagree. Dirac disagrees here as well. We discovered the positron from mathematics not the other way around. Many other discoveries have been made due to the application of mathematics (check out AlphaGo and ChatGPT).
- pphysch 3y agoMathematics being a exceptionally useful human tool is compatible with mathematics not being "natural". Must hammers grow on trees? It is also worth pointing out that the basic mathematics of deep learning are quite old and relatively simple. It was actually the technological advancement of being able to economically perform trillions of grade-school arithmetical operations per second that unlocked it, not some "mathematical discovery".
- 3y ago
- braindead_in 3y agoThe universe is a infinite neural network and we are all weights and biases.
- romusha 3y agoSo your mum has more weights in universal decision