The universe is a computer

[underpressure]

The universe is made up of particles (electrons/photons/quarks), and each particle represents one bit of information with a value of 0 or 1, it is only assigned a value when it needs to like when it is observed or measured, before that point it exists as a wave where it exists as all possible states at once. Every collision between elementary particles acts as a simple logical operation. When particles interact the universe or computer is processing information. All information in the universe can be reduced to 0s or 1s.

Computation can describe everything. Every logical argument, scientific equation and literary work that we know about, we have managed to encapsulate onto computers.

All things can compute, we've seen that almost any material can serve as a computer, our brains which are made of water compute well.

Anything one computer can do, any computer can do as they all follow the same universal process, so for your mind to compute a thought is essentially the same process as the physics of a cup being filled with water, both require the same universal process.




[FONT=verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Now I'll just quote this:
[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif]
[/FONT]

[FONT=verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Probably the trippiest science book ever written is The Physics of Immortality, by Frank Tipler. If this book was labeled standard science fiction, no one would notice, but Tipler is a reputable physicist and Tulane University professor who writes papers for the International Journal of Theoretical Physics. In Immortality, he uses current understandings of cosmology and computation to declare that all living beings will be bodily resurrected after the universe dies. His argument runs roughly as follows: As the universe collapses upon itself in the last minutes of time, the final space-time singularity creates (just once) infinite energy and computing capacity. In other words, as the giant universal computer keeps shrinking in size, its power increases to the point at which it can simulate precisely the entire historical universe, past and present and possible. He calls this state the Omega Point. It is a computational space that can resurrect "from the dead" all the minds and bodies that have ever lived. The weird thing is that Tipler was an atheist when he developed this theory and discounted as mere "coincidence" the parallels between his ideas and the Christian doctrine of Heavenly Resurrection. Since then, he says, science has convinced him that the two may be identical.[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif]While not everyone goes along with Tipler's eschatological speculations, theorists like Deutsch endorse his physics. An Omega Computer is possible and probably likely, they say. [/FONT]
[FONT=verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif]I asked Tipler which side of the Fredkin gap he is on. Does he go along with the weak version of the ultimate computer, the metaphorical one, that says the universe only seems like a computer? Or does he embrace Fredkin's strong version, that the universe is a 12 billion-year-old computer and we are the killer app? "I regard the two statements as equivalent," he answered. "If the universe in all ways acts as if it was a computer, then what meaning could there be in saying that it is not a computer?" [/FONT]
[FONT=verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Only hubris.[/FONT]

Is the Universe a Computer?

Think I might have to do some more reading on this subject, but my early impression is that this is the best interpretation of the true nature of reality I've ever come across, with some spooky possible implications that may need consideration and thought too. What does everyone else think?

 

[EphesiaNZ]

If the universe is running on Windows then we're all doomed and probably going to hell!

 

[underpressure]

If the universe is running on Windows then we're all doomed and probably going to hell!

Well if the universe is running off windows, the universe's operator if it has one (God if you like) may well have personally chosen windows as their operating system of choice, so criticising windows may well even be considered blasphemous.

If you are reading, Lord, I'm sure whatever operating system you are using it is doing a fine job, I haven't noticed the universe crash once yet.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Well if the universe is running off windows, the universe's operator if it has one (God if you like) may well have personally chosen windows as their operating system of choice, so criticising windows may well even be considered blasphemous.

If you are reading, Lord, I'm sure whatever operating system you are using it is doing a fine job, I haven't noticed the universe crash once yet.

You wouldn't. If you're part of the system then every crash would lead to a reboot, meaning that the time that passed between the last saved point and the reboot would be erased from the universe.

 

[underpressure]

You wouldn't. If you're part of the system then every crash would lead to a reboot, meaning that the time that passed between the last saved point and the reboot would be erased from the universe.

Yep, it was speculated whether it could be somehow possible to hack the computer and find out what software it is running off, and then could it be possible to alter our natural laws, and then could it be possible to travel back in time and cause the grandfather paradox to happen, and could that paradox cause the end of the universe?

 

[Eudaimonist]

The universe is made up of particles (electrons/photons/quarks), and each particle represents one bit of information with a value of 0 or 1

Well... it can be taken that way.

Every collision between elementary particles acts as a simple logical operation. When particles interact the universe or computer is processing information.

To what end?

It's easy to draw this analogy, but if the "computer" is not running a program, but simply has a lot of "random" information, then it isn't really much of a computer.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[underpressure]

Well... it can be taken that way.




To what end?

It's easy to draw this analogy, but if the "computer" is not running a program, but simply has a lot of "random" information, then it isn't really much of a computer.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Well we've defined particles as information. The computer is running a program, the program is our natural laws, these natural laws determine how our particles behave, physicists actually know a lot of these laws already, and as you probably know, physicists are searching for a formula that unifies everything. Until our particles have received an instruction it exists as a wave function it is in all possible positions at once, then it is given a value as soon as it needs one. and the wave collapses. I think if you look around you, well me personally, I see the complete opposite of randomness, everything looks very ordered, if you don't think it is much of a computer then it follows that you don't think this is much of a universe.

This interpretation fits in so well with quantum weirdness and all other knowledge I have of reality, that I'm just amazed I've never heard this before.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Well we've defined particles as information.

You can define anything as information, but that doesn't make it information. Information must have some sort of meaning to a thinking entity, or a use for some purpose. If we consider the tea leaves at the bottom of my cup of tea, it might seem like information to a tea leaf reader, but is it really meaningful or useful? Is anything useful really being communicated?

The computer is running a program, the program is our natural laws

Is that in any meaningful sense a program? It seems more analogous to hardware connections. But that isn't a program.

Until our particles have received an instruction

An instruction? Here is another analogy that stretches the metaphor.

I think if you look around you, well me personally, I see the complete opposite of randomness, everything looks very ordered

That's because it fits some conceptual scheme of yours. Everything that fits a mental model seems ordered. Order is epistemological.

if you don't think it is much of a computer then it follows that you don't think this is much of a universe.

That doesn't really follow. I have no expectations that the universe actually do anything meaningful or useful in itself. It isn't purposeful (as a whole), and it doesn't have to be purposeful.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[underpressure]

You can define anything as information, but that doesn't make it information. Information must have some sort of meaning to a thinking entity, or a use for some purpose. If we consider the tea leaves at the bottom of my cup of tea, it might seem like information to a tea leaf reader, but is it really meaningful or useful? Is anything useful really being communicated?

EVERYTHING that exists is information. Just because it may not be information that you particularly want or find useful, makes it no less information. The tea leaves at the bottom of the cup contains information, it has property that our universe (or computer) has assigned to it.

You ask if anything useful is being communicated, our whole existence is being communicated, whether you think your existence, my existence or the universes existence is useful, well we exist in this state because this is just how the natural laws played out in this simulation/reality!

Is that in any meaningful sense a program? It seems more analogous to hardware connections. But that isn't a program.

The code would contain all our natural laws, this is what I would call the software, the code is probably not massively complicated, it's just that when we run the code and all the bits of information in the universe are assigned values it becomes the complex expanding universe we experience. I don't know if you want to call this a program or not, but maybe the term is causing some confusion.

An instruction? Here is another analogy that stretches the metaphor.

Sorry, I should have said our bits of information are assigned a value.

That's because it fits some conceptual scheme of yours. Everything that fits a mental model seems ordered. Order is epistemological.

Mmmm, well.. our forefathers must have looked at the universe and our surrounding and thought, there must be some natural laws or truths governing what we experience around us, and you know what, the likes of Newton, Einstein and many others have actually discovered mathematical laws that govern how nature works. We might one day have the full set. Don't forget though, that before our bit of information or particle has been given a value, it literally has no value to us, we can't compute things that the universe hasn't given a value to yet as it doesn't exist to us yet.

That doesn't really follow. I have no expectations that the universe actually do anything meaningful or useful in itself. It isn't purposeful (as a whole), and it doesn't have to be purposeful.

Yeah, I mean we can only really try and find out truths about why things behave as they do, I don't think we will get far speculating if there is a greater purpose to our universe, well it might be a fun thing to think about but I don't think it's question that we will be able to find a truth to. That might be the question that will allude mankind.

 

[underpressure]

One thing though, regarding quantum physics... the double slit experiment. If I wanted to test that the act of observation effects how an electron behaves, what would be the easiest way of me being able to test this for myself, as there is always that slight linger of doubt about this and I'd feel happier if I could test it myself.

 

[EphesiaNZ]

Well if the universe is running off windows, the universe's operator if it has one (God if you like) may well have personally chosen windows as their operating system of choice, so criticising windows may well even be considered blasphemous.

If you are reading, Lord, I'm sure whatever operating system you are using it is doing a fine job, I haven't noticed the universe crash once yet.

I guess if His love is unconditional then His operating system for the universe is likewise and would guess it to be an open source one and not a proprietary one like Windows which is full of conditions.

 

[daniel777]

Think I might have to do some more reading on this subject, but my early impression is that this is the best interpretation of the true nature of reality I've ever come across, with some spooky possible implications that may need consideration and thought too. What does everyone else think?

don't panic?

 

[Blayz]

atomic particles have spin, of which there are more than two kinds, hence they represent more than just 2 bits of information, and that is before we consider that they occupy different areas of space and different wavelengths.

I think it is a real shame that the OP would take the awsomeness of the universe and try to shoe horn it into a desktop computer metaphor. I mean, if it has to be a computer, could it at least be a bit more complicated than ones invented in the 70s?

 

[Paul.]

If the universe is running on Windows then we're all doomed and probably going to hell!

If you think the universe is more than 100 years old, you know it can't be running on Windows because we would have experienced the blue screen of death already requiring a reboot back to the beginning.

 

[daniel777]

If you think the universe is more than 100 years old, you know it can't be running on Windows because we would have experienced the blue screen of death already requiring a reboot back to the beginning.

Maybe God has a backup drive.

 

[pgp_protector]

Anyone got the cheat codes?

 

[Paul.]

Anyone got the cheat codes?

I think there is a game on the operating system where you can get unlimited life by using the code J E S U S.

 

[underpressure]

atomic particles have spin, of which there are more than two kinds, hence they represent more than just 2 bits of information, and that is before we consider that they occupy different areas of space and different wavelengths.

I think it is a real shame that the OP would take the awsomeness of the universe and try to shoe horn it into a desktop computer metaphor. I mean, if it has to be a computer, could it at least be a bit more complicated than ones invented in the 70s?

First of all we need to remember that information is physical. A photon can have only 2 different physical states. I think where you've gone wrong is making an assumption that a photon contains information on its own position, and what it is doing, and stuff like that, a photon or any particle contains no such thing. A photon may have a position but its position isn't information that the photon carries.

A photon is just a humble elementary particle, the most basic thing there is really, you can call these states "true" "false" or "up" "down" or "on" "off" or "ying" "yang", it doesn't really matter, so each particle is worth one bit, but one bit on its own has no meaning until something interprets it to mean something. Interestingly it only comes into physical existence when something reads its state such as an eye. Until that point it it exists in its quantum state.

I guess if the universe had to calculate the exact changing position of every individual physical particle and its momentum at every moment, that would be a hell of a lot of work and processing power. The universe doesn't do this, it has a much more efficient system where it only cares where a particle is when something needs to know where it is, and so particles rarely actually exist as individual physical particles.

 

[underpressure]

I've been thinking about this a little bit further and I think I can refine the analogy a little bit.

Our brains process information, the information takes the form of atomic particles, so in that sense you could say our brains aren't technically too dissimilar from that 1970s desktop, although natural selection came up with the design long before.

It would be easier now to think of the universe as a fairly infant brain. Anything that computes information makes up the universes' brain. So we humans are to the universe, what a particle is to our brains. So the universe is in effect like a next gen super computer.

How do I know this? I don't for sure, but I'm going to write up my revised thoughts in full and one or two interesting questions it poses over the next day or so as it all kinda makes perfect sense to me, it might be a complete waste of my time but that's what the philosophy section is exactly for.

 

[UnReAL13]

This whole concept is very similar to the thread I started about the Simulation Hypothesis.