If the universe was a computer program.

[hoola]

the reason I said it "seems" math is at the bottom of everything, (and allows the existence of computers, both inorganic and organic) is that Pythagoras said it, John Wheeler speculated on "why anything and why the quantum", and most recently Max Tegmark's book Our Mathematical Universe is explicit on the subject. Why anything, indeed.... how could the nascent universe begin from a void? My model amplifies the only label that can be attached to this proposed void, in that there was only ONE void, not 1/2 a void, or 46 semi-voids....that is the ephemeral fleeting thing, and the only thing possible to describe said void, thus demanding that I must use what is available and build upon it. I use this idea as a starting point for my IBH model, which I admit is only an amusing (if only to myself) placeholder until a more coherent idea if offered.....as much as can be deduced about the universe at large based upon the studying what exists, is to an extent the "low hanging fruit". The real work will be to deduce what happened before this universe existed, pre-big bang, where there can be no physical, or (mature) mathematical evidence to dissect.

Edited January 4, 2017 by hoola

[hoola]

to moontoonman...yes, I think the universe can be "hacked",,,the observer effect seems to predict that consciousness can be seen as a 5th force, not an actual force, but able to influence the outcome of interactions of the "real" four forces, at least on the basis of human perception of extant reality. The observer affects the experiment, This "hacking" is perhaps a clue to the nature of the Fermi paradox. and due to recent political events, seems well underway on this planet.

[Strange]

to moontoonman...yes, I think the universe can be "hacked",,,the observer effect seems to predict that consciousness can be seen as a 5th force, not an actual force, but able to influence the outcome of interactions of the "real" four forces, at least on the basis of human perception of extant reality. The observer affects the experiment, This "hacking" is perhaps a clue to the nature of the Fermi paradox. and due to recent political events, seems well underway on this planet.

 

 

There is nothing special about "consciousness" in this. The observer could be a camera or other measuring device.

[Delta1212]

 

 

There is nothing special about "consciousness" in this. The observer could be a camera or other measuring device.

Or even a brick wall, for that matter. "Observing" just means "interacting in a way such that the property in question is important to the outcome of the interaction."

 

It doesn't really require an apparatus designed for detection, recording or measurement.

[Sensei]

Actually human being can see interference pattern on his/her own eyes, instantly, at least me

but if we try to make photo of interference pattern (young's experiment), I had to take 20-30+ photos,

to have it recorded by digital camera..

Over and over they're missing on the final photos,

but they were visible on LCD/LED preview screen by digital camera..

But not after hitting button..

 

That's damn frustrating..

Edited January 5, 2017 by Sensei

[hoola]

"There is nothing special about consciousness in this. The observer could be a camera...." Yes, but the final step in the process towards any measurement outcome is a sentient mind to observe the meter or camera, then know the outcome and perhaps share that information with other observers. And to have built the meter and camera, then set up experiments using this equipment. In short, does not our unique manipulation of reality infer a unique observer status? Certainly a brick wall did not perform any experiment, and then share that information within the individual bricks making up this wall, or between itself and any adjacent brick walls.

sensi, perhaps the missing info on the camera is a conflict between the scanning process / pixel density of your camera and the interference pattern you are try to capture. A sort of interfering in a random fashion on another interference pattern. Perhaps using a film camera would give more consistent results

Edited January 5, 2017 by hoola

[Ophiolite]

Could the speed of light be said to be equivalent to the processor speed?

 

 

it's just fun to think about how you might try to simulate a universe given limitless technology and knowledge

Taking these two observations together, I presume you would begin the simulation with the words "Let there be light."

[Delta1212]

"There is nothing special about consciousness in this. The observer could be a camera...." Yes, but the final step in the process towards any measurement outcome is a sentient mind to observe the meter or camera, then know the outcome and perhaps share that information with other observers. And to have built the meter and camera, then set up experiments using this equipment. In short, does not our unique manipulation of reality infer a unique observer status? Certainly a brick wall did not perform any experiment, and then share that information within the individual bricks making up this wall, or between itself and any adjacent brick walls.

sensi, perhaps the missing info on the camera is a conflict between the scanning process / pixel density of your camera and the interference pattern you are try to capture. A sort of interfering in a random fashion on another interference pattern. Perhaps using a film camera would give more consistent results

You're getting into whether anything exists when no one is looking at it. While that is often conflated with the observer effect in the press, that is not what the observer effect is. Any interaction for which a particular state or property of a quantum object has an effect on the interaction will effect that state or property. There is no way to measure any state or property without setting up such an interaction.

 

Hence the relevance to measurement. But the same interactions have the same effect regardless of whether anyone is watching or whether any instrument is recording for posterity.

 

This is separate from the larger philosophical question of whether the room still exists when you leave it or the moon still exists when no one is looking, as the two classic examples generally go. We can't know what no one knows, and if the universe is capable of snapping back into a state as if everything had preceded exactly as it would have if everything had existed the entire time no one was present then there is really no way to tell one way or another. Even this is often conflated with the observer effect in science reporting, that is not what the observer effect refers to in terms of quantum mechanics, which is more about the inevitability of the thing being measured being changed by the measurement because of the way interactions work on the quantum level. But the interactions work the same way whether they are being used to measure anything by us or not. It's just that we can't measure anything without an interaction.

[hoola]

so, there are no gradations within the larger set of observers? And I am not deliberately getting into whether anything exists when no one is looking. That is another issue. I am interested in the limits of an observer's maximum informational exchange, and asymmetries relative to each observer's capacity to process and store interactions within a finite test period. So a camera has more "capacity" than a wall, and a human has more than a camera.

On the subject of "whether anything exist when no one is looking"....if observers are everywhere, then those components of the universe look at each other, in a sort of entanglement of observance, thus maintaining long term memory of it's own existence, (factoring in a gradual alteration due to entropy), independent of a conscious observer's behaviour.

Edited January 6, 2017 by hoola

[Sensei]

If the universe was a computer program..

...it would need pretty damn good random number generation algorithm...

Otherwise simulation would run over and over and over again, always the same way.

Without randomization there would be no free will.

Without randomization this experiment with laser and polarization filter would always give the same result:
http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/98608-determinism-or-indeterminism/?p=944662

Edited January 18, 2017 by Sensei