Re: Is the universe computable

From: CMR <jackogreen.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 09:34:50 -0800

Greetings Eugen

>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.

I'm familiar with the concept of a metalayer in software dev as a
compatibility interface between apps etc.. So, in this case the
"meta-layer" being I assume the "interface" between the universes abstractly
and between the simulation and the platform concretely, or is it referring
to the computational device itself that the simulation is running on (per
your bit "storage" reference below)?

>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
>implicitly).

The "visible" universe meaning ours(?) I assume, and the the bit storage
accounting for our 4th Dimensional progression?


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

Indeed

>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).

matrioshka = nested I assume as in the dolls; I interpret this to mean that
"selection" would favor a universal resource economy of high efficiency and
so the "cost" of simulating a universe of at least our's complexity would be
deleterious to the "survival" of the "host" universe and thus lower it's
relative fitness? Or am I full of it here?

Ever fearing the latter,
CMR

<-- insert gratuitous quotation that implies my profundity here -->
Received on Wed Jan 21 2004 - 12:44:24 PST