[HN Gopher] Is the Universe Open-Ended? An intriguing proposal a...
___________________________________________________________________
Is the Universe Open-Ended? An intriguing proposal about what makes
reality tick
Author : nnx
Score : 44 points
Date : 2021-06-17 11:34 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (nautil.us)
(TXT) w3m dump (nautil.us)
| AtlasBarfed wrote:
| To me it isn't the stastical quantum randomness that collapses to
| free will, it's the fundamental uncomputable nature of predicting
| the universe, both in our inability to acquire the information
| per the uncertainty principle, and the fact we can't build a
| computer big enough or fast enough. We'd need more matter than
| there us matter to track state, and of course it won't be faster
| than the universe generates new states and data.
|
| Do in the end if we can't get the data due to scale uncertainty
| and the speed of light, cannot store it and process it (not
| enough matter or time), then we fall back to: do people appear to
| have free will? We cannot perform the computation to refute that,
| so basically we do.
| sgt101 wrote:
| I guess you are saying that the universe implements a
| particular BQP function in the minimal QC required to run it on
| the power that was put into it at the start? What does that
| mean though, if I write down something like an Eager Beaver
| function and start to try to solve it?
| cgio wrote:
| I see often what in my view is a conflation of freedom and free
| will. Freedom can be associated with randomness, or enabled by
| it, in a way that is conducive to establishing a workable model.
| But when _will_ comes into play, it implies that a free choice
| does not only reflect a choice of action but also of result. Will
| is fundamentally not about the action but about its objective.
| Therefore, it is incompatible with randomness in the sense that
| if randomness permeates not only my actions but also their
| effects, then I am free to choose between randomness and
| randomness. So while freedom can be associated with
| unpredictability it does not really amount to much in that case.
|
| On the other hand if we focus on predictability and have that as
| condition of will then determinism permeates our choices, so will
| becomes just a projection of laws, their backpropagation on an
| arbitrary decision model.
|
| We can move to statistical interpretations of the kind that our
| will is not deterministic but a will of rational expectations
| etc. but my intuitive feeling is that the separation of
| intentionality from causality is like a middle ground between two
| wrongs.
|
| At the end of the day, I believe this paradox is the outcome of
| what I call "a sock's theory of the foot".
|
| Fundamentally, if free will requires both causality-determinism
| and free choice, I believe it's only feasible in a model of
| timeless causality where we can move the dial on the determinism
| of decisions or intentions or results or all of them at the same
| "time". We are deterministic illusions of freedom of timeless
| intentional agents.
|
| Edited:for clarity of timelessness argument
| codethief wrote:
| Clicked on the article because I thought it would discuss the
| topology of the universe, i.e. whether (a spatial slice of) the
| universe is open (non-compact and without boundary) or closed
| (compact[0] and without boundary) or something else. :(
|
| [0]: In particular, it would be of finite volume.
| JackFr wrote:
| This piece is a bit of a meandering mess. The author uses jargon
| to obfuscate rather than clarify, makes assertions without proof
| as he jumps between thought-experiments and descriptions of the
| universe.
|
| > These freebits also have to be quantum in nature.
|
| Why?
|
| > That means they are also "qubits"--the version of plain old 1
| and 0 bits that applies to objects and systems exhibiting quantum
| behavior. They are fuzzy, undetermined things until called upon
| and snapped into focus. That's a complication that I'm going to
| avoid really dealing with, because it will really make our heads
| hurt.
|
| Hmmm. I've got plenty of Advil. Try me. What are you possibly
| trying to say here
|
| > Suppose you want to track back the chain of events that led to
| a specific incident--something interesting in a physics
| experiment, or a chicken crossing the road. For some incidents
| there will be a chain that goes all the way back to the original
| freebits.
|
| For some incidents? Shouldn't literally everything have a chain
| going back to the original freebits?
|
| By all accounts the author seems like a really bright guy, and I
| can only hope this is a half-assed condensation of a portion of
| his latest book because this is not good.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Not the author, but maybe some thoughts:
|
| '> These freebits also have to be quantum in nature. Why?'
|
| Maybe the author is assuming there are no elements in the
| universe that don't follow quantum mechanics?
|
| ' > Suppose you want to track back the chain of events that led
| to a specific incident--something interesting in a physics
| experiment, or a chicken crossing the road. For some incidents
| there will be a chain that goes all the way back to the
| original freebits. For some incidents? Shouldn't literally
| everything have a chain going back to the original freebits?'
|
| It seems like everything should have a chain of causality back
| to some thing. Except there has to be at least one uncaused
| causes, or else it's just an infinite regression and not
| meaningful.
| ageofzfarm wrote:
| > Maybe the author is assuming there are no elements in the
| universe that don't follow quantum mechanics?
|
| Exactly, the author is assuming the universe is a quantum
| Turing machine.
|
| > It seems like everything should have a chain of causality
| back to some thing. Except there has to be at least one
| uncaused causes, or else it's just an infinite regression and
| not meaningful.
|
| It's not necessarily so.
|
| Models that aim to describe the universe before the Planck
| epoch are speculative. There are known theories that does not
| include uncaused causes as a necessary condition while being
| internally-consistent.
|
| They are often self-referential solutions to the Wheeler-
| deWitt equation.
|
| e.g.: The Hartle-Hawking state and some interpretations of
| Carlo Rovelli's QLG
| derbOac wrote:
| I agree it was meandering and a mess in that sense, but I still
| enjoyed reading it. Normally I'd be bothered due a sense of
| wasted time but I think these issues are worth thinking
| through, and even if not everything ties together in the essay
| I think they're relevant to one another topically. Sometimes
| I'm ok with many loose ends.
|
| For me, the Knightian uncertainty was interesting to think
| about in the context of free will and predictability, but it
| seemed as if the connection wasn't there in the way the author
| wanted it to be. At some point the author suggests that if
| Knightian uncertainty holds, "instead of being predictably
| unpredictable it is simply unpredictable, and cannot be
| described by straightforward mathematical probabilities.
| Instead it reflects the free will of a human being."
|
| Isn't Knightean uncertainty more reflective of an
| epistemological state of an observer/modeler? I mean, you can
| still assign probabilities to an event even if your model is
| wrong or extremely simple. Events that are truly random will
| still have probabilities assignable to them.
|
| I'm also deeply uncomfortable with the argument that seems to
| be creeping in in this essay and in elsewhere that
| unpredictability seems to be equated with free will. I do not
| see them as the same. Just as example, say your decision
| between A and B is replaced with a truly random event with
| 30-70% probabilities. Does that mean free will? I would say no.
| Free will has some other element associated with it, an element
| I haven't heard articulated very well yet.
| bottled_poe wrote:
| > bizarre imprint of an interpretation of the universe by the
| universe
|
| It's an insightful idea. That my mind is both part of the
| universe, but also able to conceive of the universe, and beyond?
| Where are the real boundaries?
| everdrive wrote:
| Your mind does not conceive of the universe in any meaningful
| way, though. It's not as if a mind can simulate all the
| particles, light, and physics. What you have is closer to an
| encyclopedia page: a collection of facts and descriptions which
| are broadly true, but don't offer much in the way of specific
| understanding or predictive power.
| bottled_poe wrote:
| Sounds like we may have differing definitions of
| "meaningful".
| sgt101 wrote:
| >in any meaningful way
|
| Whooohaaa! Where do you think that the mechanisms that allow
| us to build atomic clocks and telescopes and quantum computer
| come from if not from the human mind?! Are angels doing it
| for us?
| tgragnato wrote:
| The linked publication
| https://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/giqtm3.pdf speculates
| that the universe and our brain are "quantum Turing
| machines".
|
| Given the assumptions, we need to count in the fundamental
| limits on computation.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limits_of_computation
|
| It's safe to deduce our brain can't simulate the universe,
| but only a "less powerful" description/representation of
| it. Otherwise the assumptions are inconsistent, and a
| paradox arises.
|
| Obviously, since we don't know how the brain nor the
| universe work... It's all speculation
| JackFr wrote:
| Yeah, but the naming of the objects is a pretty important
| thing. There is no 'galaxy' or 'star' or even 'atom' without
| a mind to put a name on them.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Where would one derive the authority though to proclaim that
| the mind does not conceive in any meaningful way?
| LocalH wrote:
| I mean if dreaming is any indication, the mind is actually
| pretty good at "simulating all the particles, light, and
| physics", with of course some "rendering issues"
| gls2ro wrote:
| I think about dreaming more like a movie stage where there
| is a limited space but within that limited space one can be
| tricked into seeing an entire Star Trek Universe.
|
| So I think the mind is pretty good at making us think it
| simulates all the particles and light and physics.
| ajuc wrote:
| It simulates the sensations not the universe. It's a mock
| not a simulation.
| LocalH wrote:
| I mean, from the perspective of the internal experience,
| that's kind of moot anyway. Reality is only as real as it
| feels to us inside
| hutzlibu wrote:
| And some serious consistency issues.
|
| Meaning no solid base physic model.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| Interestingly, the same is true of waking life. Our
| perception is only loosely representative model of the
| world we operate in. We see, hear, and feel a tiny fraction
| of our local environment, and most of what we perceive is
| filled in by our imagination, and/or highly post processed.
| phkahler wrote:
| >> Interestingly, the same is true of waking life.
|
| The notion that most of our experience is projection is
| really fascinating to me. Or rather it's projection
| combined with inputs at various levels of abstraction,
| and our attention is diverted to where these two differ.
| A lot of empirical evidence suggests this is the case. A
| deep dive in psychotherapy can help one to see this up
| close. The notion that it applies to visual input seems
| crazy, but you can also do fun experiments with the
| "blind spot" in your vision that are pretty convincing.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| I love to explore the concept of color as an example.
| Color represents regions of a continuous EM spectrum.
| "Green" represents a photon between 495-570nm, but the
| concept of only exists within the human mind. The color I
| call green might be the what someone else calls red if we
| ever had a brain to brain interface.
| IIAOPSW wrote:
| You know what else lets you explore it in detail? LSD.
| You'll see exactly how abstraction and pattern
| extrapolation is superimposed over reality. It likely
| isn't a coincidence that what you see is like a JPEG
| artifact but crystals instead of squares.
| LocalH wrote:
| Indeed it is. Even temporally
| jagraff wrote:
| I can throw a ball up in the air and catch it 99 times out of
| 100. Seems to me that my mind has strong predictive power.
| doggodaddo78 wrote:
| I don't understand what point they're trying to make.
|
| What I already knew:
|
| The Big Bang happened everywhere at once.
|
| The expansion of the universe is accelerating and will ultimately
| die in a Big Rip.
|
| The total universe is presently about the size of 390 - 1.5e7
| observable universes (Hubbles).
|
| The total universe likely has a flat and open geometry.
|
| Free will, like religion, is a human psychological construction
| opiate to distract from the limits of existence.
|
| So what does this article add?
| swayvil wrote:
| Given that what reality looks like, including that part of
| reality that consists of "one's thoughts about reality", depends
| on how one looks at it. The fundament of reality should probably
| be considered, not one's thoughts about it, but one's way of
| looking at it.
| imvetri wrote:
| Note to self - Brace for downvotes. Anyways only 6 is left.
|
| Universe is open ended. Knowledge is open ended. Void is open
| ended. Math is open ended. Physics is open ended. Atomic physics
| is open ended.
|
| It is not just with the universe its a common pattern. (side
| note- Some smart lad will reply back your brain is open ended)
|
| and few others will come with simulation theory. Which is also
| true.
|
| Coming to the real question, whats the point of knowing all these
| ?
|
| These are all the moves by an intellect addict.
|
| If these arent' true then what is ? Have fun with friends, take
| care of family. That's all.
|
| These knowledge would't pay your bills, well off course, you can
| create a gimmic tech toy and get some business running and get
| someone employed.
|
| Just educate yourself that will pay for your bread and butter.
|
| In other words, ones who escape from reality (friends and
| families), are the ones who experience reality ticking. :D
| Atleast a good conclusion.
| slver wrote:
| I think a crucial important first step in a discussion of the
| type "is X a Y or a Z" is that we have very clear definition of
| X, Y and Z.
|
| Unfortunately the article isn't very clear about any of this,
| so then the discussion becomes a discussion about definitions.
| Which is useless. There's no objective definition of a term.
| Terms are artificial symbols designed to mean whatever we want
| them to mean. And they're often incredibly overloaded, or
| underspecified.
|
| Also coming to a thread about the nature of reality and talking
| about how there's no point in discussing the nature of reality
| is a contradiction of your own advice.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| If how to pay your bills is everything you want to know about
| the universe, then have fun with it.
|
| But to many people, including friends and family - the question
| of the meaning of it all is a frequent and important one.
| Influencing directly how we live.
|
| The more we know about the universe, the better we can answer.
| We have gathered very strong indications, negating the old
| "answer" that life is a bit older than 6000 years, meaning also
| an effective powerloss for those people in charge, who made
| society run by the literal guidance of an old myth book.
| 52-6F-62 wrote:
| Going on a tangent, but to be fair I don't think the old
| answer was ever that the Earth/reality/the universe/all/etc
| is only 6000 years old.
|
| Isn't that more of a modern misinterpretation of ancient
| mystical children's stories? You know, saving the pearls from
| the swine, so to speak?
|
| The powerful have often been caught up in controversies
| (usually due to misunderstandings) around secret societies
| and other clubs that tend to carry those philosophical and
| mystical traditions forward which tend to reject the myth
| books as anything remotely literal. Except for (forgive my
| glossing over this part) more mundane fundamentalist
| uprisings throughout history, a lot of leadership has tended
| to associate as if they're above the literal tellings.
|
| If you follow threads of mysticism in any form back through
| human history, it seems the overarching theory has remained
| pretty similar with the middling details a little murky and
| swapped around. Hell, some of the concepts strike me as
| uncannily close to what we continue to unravel and discover
| with physical sciences.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| Huh?
|
| There are still freaks around, who take the bible literal
| and some are even in position of power. They used to
| control the western welt, until new ideas negated their
| source of power: offering people answers. But people saw
| other ideas (science) made more sense.
| 52-6F-62 wrote:
| Those are the mundane fundamentalists I noted. They're
| not the sole bearers of power throughout history.
| Probably the minority, since they're usually responsible
| for reductions in their own power, and the power of the
| people they rule.
|
| Not even Christian philosophy began with Constantine.
|
| edit: My comments may sound muddier than I thought. I'm
| saying that human cosmological theory and understanding
| did not go from Holy Bible -> Science.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| No, before we had the godkings of egypt, babylon, ..
|
| I am not a historian, but from what I know the base of
| power of many if not most states(empires) was based on
| religious beliefs (and soldiers enforcing it). From my
| layman understanding, the most successful states were the
| ones practicing the most tolerance. But then usually some
| egomaniac wanted to maintain his power and went into
| theocracy, where the priests legitimated his power. And
| then there maybe was stability for a time, but seldom any
| progress.
| 52-6F-62 wrote:
| I think you're talking about something completely
| different now.
|
| I was just picking on your line about going from the "old
| answer" that the earth was 6000 years old to the "new
| answer" of science-based reasoning. I didn't mean to come
| across as confrontational--like I said, just going on a
| tangent.
|
| So I'm saying that timeline never happened. Animism and
| universal consciousness, various planes of existence and
| dimensional properties are concepts that appear to
| stretch throughout human history. Most leadership
| participated on a more esoteric level of mysticism
| throughout human history (even if they themselves didn't
| fully grasp it). Dogmatic religion was a convenient
| teaching tool that grew to overpower its creators and
| operate on its own accord (another tangent). It's best
| not to mix up its use as a allegorical teaching tool and
| tool of exercising power and what humans at large have
| considered a well-considered cosmological model--
| something that hasn't really fundamentally changed, even
| with the aid of science. And not out of ignorance, but
| that sciences like physics have even hinted at some of
| the old models being consistent. Enough so that it made
| some real interesting characters out of people who had a
| sound grasp of chemistry and quantum theories like Jack
| Parsons who could never extricate the old models with his
| own growing understanding, even if it was not accurate or
| complete. It's pretty fascinating to read about.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| "I think you're talking about something completely
| different now."
|
| I meant the same theme:
|
| That thinking about the universe beyound materialistic
| advantages can indeed have other advantages - by helping
| create us societies, closer to our true nature. And not
| let some dogmatic priest declare that for us.
|
| No confrontation ;)
|
| And sure, there is no single timeline. I think some
| ancient philosophic concepts might be closer to the
| truth, than some mathematic approximations we use today.
| But mathematic based science is a very powerful tool, for
| getting verification. So it is indeed fascinating, to see
| where we are heading.
| egfx wrote:
| Intellect addiction is an interesting way to put it. Because
| the brain has so much capacity you have 1 of 2 options. Use
| your brain to explain nature or disconnect and absorb and have
| nature connect with you automatically. I'd argue you're putting
| yourself into connection with the universe when you don't put
| your mind to it (that much).
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-06-17 23:02 UTC)