Re: Introduction (Digital Physics)

From: Joel Dobrzelewski <>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 14:10:06 -0400

Hi Robert:

> Discrete and finite viewpoints are an artifact of a finite
> consciousness.

I agree.

> It can, just not all at once. You could say Ram and paper are
> temporally challenged entities.

Do you have an example of something (other than the universe itself) that is
not temporally challenged?

> We are forced to interpret this infinite string in finite terms
> because we *think* in finite terms.

Again, I agree.

> One can train his brain to interpret any equation that fits in his
> field of view simultaneously. That is, the entire equation front to
> back as one visual/symbolic entity. From there, the information would
> trickle back through the neurons to form an expression the
> interpreter disires. So in effect, to the limit of his field of view,
> he sees the equation in it's entirety simultaneously without delay.

Yes, the equation fits in the mind without problem. But it's the
implementation that's going to get you. At some point the simulation is
going to deviate from nature at the point where the field of view ends.
Such a view is only an approximation to what is actually happening.

If our goal is a Theory of Everything, then those missing bits of PI are
going to come back to haunt us at some point.

Maybe it is this goal where our views have departed.

I want to implement nature precisely - with no rounding errors.

Others seem content in describing it with broad mathematical statements that
are illustrative of the whole, but lacking in the details.

> Only processing depth incurs any delay.

Yes, but we're not talking about a couple of seconds while god's computer
displays an hourglass. We're talking about an eternity. And if our Theory
of Everything makes use of the whole PI - crust and all - then that
hourglass is going to be on the screen for a very long time... forever.

The burden of proof lies with those who claim that infinity exists.

I say... show it to me/us.

Challenge: Try to write a program or come up with a set of equations that
makes use of the continuum.

Otherwise, our words are only pieces of dreams in the mind of god.

> Are we truely seperate from the universe that gave birth to us?

Not at all, and this is my point. When creating our Theories of Everything,
there is no need to rely on a multitude of infinite structures. (PI, e,
etc.) One infinite structure is as good as any other. The universe itself,
because it DOES exist forever, IS a continuum.

But it need be the only one. Everything else inside can be discrete and
finite... parts of the whole.

Meanwhile, we have found a simple process... the minimal cellular
automaton... that generates all variations of finite structures. Taken as a
whole, this object is infinitely complex. There is no need to search for
anything more. Is there?

Received on Mon Jun 18 2001 - 11:09:18 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:07 PST