Re: Is the universe computable

From: Eugen Leitl <>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 19:09:38 +0100

On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 09:34:50AM -0800, CMR wrote:

> 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)?

The latter. Just ab abstraction of the physical layer embedding the
> The "visible" universe meaning ours(?) I assume, and the the bit storage


> accounting for our 4th Dimensional progression?

That depends whether we're an object, or a process in the metalayer.
> matrioshka = nested I assume as in the dolls; I interpret this to mean that

Yes, e.g. us implementing a virtual universe large enough to include
observers. The limitations of the host substrate (relativistic universe of
limited duration, constraints of computational physics --> upper limit to
the bits and number of operations on these bits).

> "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?

No, this is not selection of universes, just motivations of systems occupying
an universe. Matter and energy is a scarce commodity in the current universe,
so assuming an universe we're currently observing is not doesn't require
trivial resources to run there's a negative pressure on the motivations to
run it.

-- 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 - 13:10:43 PST

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