Re: Is the universe computable

From: Eugen Leitl <>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 10:36:33 +0100

On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 10:33:57PM -0800, CMR wrote:

> Yes! you've captured the gist and fleshed out the raw concept that "hit" me
> whilst reading your post on "weightless" computation; that's potentially the
> value of it as an avenue to explore, I think: that there is an
> equivalence/symmetry/correspondence by which the universe's map to one
> another but it's not direct(?) is it a form of information conveyance?
> hmmm..

While it is not possible to infer physics of the metalayer, it is possible to
infer the number of bits necessary to encode this universe.

Give the visible universe's timespace complexity (assuming, it's not just
an elaborate fake rendered for a few observers, which is synononymous to
postulating gods or a God), the metalayer needs to store an awful lot of
bits, and track them over an awful lot of iterations (or represent time

It is very, very big, judged by our standards of computational physics.

As such postulating matrioshka universes implies running very large
simulations is essentially free, this is not true in a darwinian context
(which applies for all places supporting imperfect replication and limited
amount of dimensions).
> Reference time...
-- Eugen* Leitl <a href="">leitl</a>
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

Received on Wed Jan 21 2004 - 04:38:48 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:09 PST