4 ms·

What Is Ultimately Possible in Physics?

cromulent 17y ago
Some of the other essays in the competition are worth a look. http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/category/31416 http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/category/31416
- chrischen 17y ago
  Hey thanks for the link. I actually read one other article about the ultimate velocity and whether or not it exists. http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/548 http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/548 I left a comment (by Chris C.) about his interpretation of time, but having never finished a class on relativity (yet), I'm hoping some physicist can examine my comment because I seriously did pull most of my conjectures out of my butt while I was writing it. But it makes sense based on what I knew.
- jackchristopher 17y ago
  And here are the rest of Wolfram's writing for reference: http://www.stephenwolfram.com/publications/recent/ http://www.stephenwolfram.com/publications/recent/
motters 17y ago
Wolfram seems to reference himself a lot.
- ced 17y ago
  Oy, he's writing an essay on some of the ideas in his book, NKS. Of course, he'll refer the interested reader to the relevant chapters. I thought it was well written; it delves deep on the "universe as a giant Turing Machine" perspective.
mitko 17y ago
Corrolary 1: We can never prove that we are not in the Matrix.
- human_v2 17y ago
  We lack sufficient evidence to prove that we reside in a Matrix-like construct. Pending evidence, we shall continue believing that we do not live in such a construct.... though the line between physical reality and virtual reality become blurrier every day.
  - gnaritas 17y ago
    > We lack sufficient evidence to prove that we reside in a Matrix-like construct. I'm not sure we even have sufficient evidence to suggest it, let alone prove it.
    - glymor 17y ago
      Have a look at the Simulation Argument http://www.simulation-argument.com/ http://www.simulation-argument.com/. Crude synopsis: if it is possible to create such an simulation then the probability that we in one is the number of possible simulated universes (v. large) vs the number of real universes (1) ie high probability that we are within a simulation.
      - rosser 17y ago
        I've always heard that expressed as the Simulation Paradox: either full-fidelity simulations, a la The Matrix, are impossible, or we're already in one.
        gloob 17y ago
        How is that paradoxical?
      - deleted 17y ago
        [deleted]
human_v2 17y ago
What is possible? Everything. It just depends on what level we are able to effectively manipulate the universe. Suppose for a moment that the universe is comprised of 'bits' at the very smallest possible scales. We do not currently have direct (root) access to these bits, so we must manipulate them from within the system. Because our universe is NP-complete, given enough control over these universal bits, anything that is thinkable is possible. Will we ever be able to control these bits? It remains to be seen, but I should think so eventually.
- ars 17y ago
  You should actually read the article. And, please look up NP-complete, because I don't think you know what it means (as opposed to just NP).
  - nostrademons 17y ago
    If the universe is NP-complete, then P = NP. Proof: universe = 42 (Adams 1978). 42 can be computed in O(1) time. Therefore, universe is in P. If one problem in the set of NP-complete problems is in P, they are all in P. Therefore, P = NP.

Some of the other essays in the competition are worth a look. http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/category/31416 http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/category/31416

chrischen 17y ago
Hey thanks for the link. I actually read one other article about the ultimate velocity and whether or not it exists. http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/548 http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/548 I left a comment (by Chris C.) about his interpretation of time, but having never finished a class on relativity (yet), I'm hoping some physicist can examine my comment because I seriously did pull most of my conjectures out of my butt while I was writing it. But it makes sense based on what I knew.
jackchristopher 17y ago
And here are the rest of Wolfram's writing for reference: http://www.stephenwolfram.com/publications/recent/ http://www.stephenwolfram.com/publications/recent/

motters 17y ago

Wolfram seems to reference himself a lot.

ced 17y ago
Oy, he's writing an essay on some of the ideas in his book, NKS. Of course, he'll refer the interested reader to the relevant chapters. I thought it was well written; it delves deep on the "universe as a giant Turing Machine" perspective.

mitko 17y ago

Corrolary 1: We can never prove that we are not in the Matrix.

human_v2 17y ago
We lack sufficient evidence to prove that we reside in a Matrix-like construct. Pending evidence, we shall continue believing that we do not live in such a construct.... though the line between physical reality and virtual reality become blurrier every day.
- gnaritas 17y ago
  > We lack sufficient evidence to prove that we reside in a Matrix-like construct. I'm not sure we even have sufficient evidence to suggest it, let alone prove it.
  - glymor 17y ago
    Have a look at the Simulation Argument http://www.simulation-argument.com/ http://www.simulation-argument.com/. Crude synopsis: if it is possible to create such an simulation then the probability that we in one is the number of possible simulated universes (v. large) vs the number of real universes (1) ie high probability that we are within a simulation.
    - rosser 17y ago
      I've always heard that expressed as the Simulation Paradox: either full-fidelity simulations, a la The Matrix, are impossible, or we're already in one.
      - gloob 17y ago
        How is that paradoxical?
    - deleted 17y ago
      [deleted]

human_v2 17y ago

What is possible? Everything. It just depends on what level we are able to effectively manipulate the universe. Suppose for a moment that the universe is comprised of 'bits' at the very smallest possible scales. We do not currently have direct (root) access to these bits, so we must manipulate them from within the system. Because our universe is NP-complete, given enough control over these universal bits, anything that is thinkable is possible. Will we ever be able to control these bits? It remains to be seen, but I should think so eventually.

ars 17y ago
You should actually read the article. And, please look up NP-complete, because I don't think you know what it means (as opposed to just NP).
- nostrademons 17y ago
  If the universe is NP-complete, then P = NP. Proof: universe = 42 (Adams 1978). 42 can be computed in O(1) time. Therefore, universe is in P. If one problem in the set of NP-complete problems is in P, they are all in P. Therefore, P = NP.