Re: My history or Peters??

From: Fred Chen <flipsu5.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 23:55:55 -0700

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Fred Chen [mailto:flipsu5.domain.name.hidden]
> >
> > A codified description of how the all-universes model works would be
nice.
> > Will a program that executes all programs really suffice? It seems more
like
> > an analogy than an actual model. With a computational model of bacterial
> > growth, for example, one can simulate this on a computer screen as
> > multiplying dots, or possibly even provide a realistic visual image of a
> > growing bacterial population, but is that the same as an actual petri
dish?
>
> Did someone suggest it was?

I believe computation is a good way to represent whatever we want to
describe. The all-universe, or multiverse, model seems like a suitable thing
to pursue computationally. However, making the jump from the description or
representation (which will be computation-driven) to the actual phenomenon
or experience, still needs to be dealt with.

When you mentioned a complete description of reality vs. a complete codified
description of how it works (you also acknowledge these to be different),
this was the immediate response in my mind.

So I think we agree?

>
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Charles Goodwin" <cgoodwin.domain.name.hidden>
> > To: <Fabric-of-Reality.domain.name.hidden>
> > Cc: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 2:15 PM
> > Subject: RE: My history or Peters??
> >
> >
> > > I was talking about the laws of physics. It's possible in
> > principle for
> > those to be known (I think). One can also know all there is
> > > to know while knowing that one's knowledge is incomplete!
> > Obviously a
> > complete description of reality is impossible (where would you
> > > store the information about the state of every particle?)
> > but a complete
> > codified description of how reality works is another story.
> > >
> > > Charles

I had written:

> > The 'laws of physics' is now a really outdated term, I think. The scope
is
> > not so clear these days (where does physics end, and another field
begin?).
> > One can even consider the all-universe model to be almost a 'law' of
> > physics, in the sense that it is often invoked to explain certain
problems
> > in physics.
>
> The term 'laws of physics' is shorthand for whatever rules the universe
operates by on the most fundamental scale. What you call it
> or what field you consider yourself to be in isn't really relevant. For
example the currently understood 'laws of physics' include
> the four forces, the nature of matter and the nature of space-time. The
sort of thing we're discussing here can often be
> conveniently abbreviated as 'the laws of physics'. I'm not sure what point
you're trying to make by arguing about semantics?
>
> Charles

There is something about complete knowledge that bothers me. You had
mentioned the laws of physics can possibly be completely understood. In my
response, I was saying, depending on what 'the laws of physics' means, that
could be true or impossible. That's where the scope is important. If the
laws of physics only needs to cover the current state of particle physics
without grand unification, it is true. On the other hand, a complete
physical or mathematical description of our thoughts is impossible, for
Godelian reasons.

Fred
Received on Thu Sep 06 2001 - 00:03:01 PDT