I was just wonder, because you seem to be the guru on infinite computation around here, if you could answer a burning question of mine. It's this, Both the Beckenstein Bound and the Bremmerman Limit involve dividing by Planck's constant, so what would happen if it were zero? I've also noticed that in such a universe electron rest mass, Avagrado's constant, and the atomic mass constant would be infinite. so if the universe could survive without collapsing,(like if modified it not to produce normal baryonic matter but, instead used a more exotic substrate such as superstrings not vibrating at frequencies that would produce such particles) could you compute at all? What I really mean is, even if the Bound and Limit were divided by zero, would the bizzare properties of that universe prevent computation at all, even if the Bound and Limit suggested otherwise?
A Question For Setai
(127 posts) (13 voices)-
Hi Z!
I think it is important to understand that while it is tempting to consider the Planck scale as the grain of space/time/energy and build lattice theories based on "Planck atoms" ultimately the Planck scale should be understood as the limit of OBSERVABILITY in our reality- and in physical processes that are part of our observable universe- just like the Cosmological Horizon is the boundary of our universe in larger space scales- yet most assume possibly infinite space beyond- the Planck scale in space and time could EASILY extend into smaller domains - in an infinite Fractal and/or chaotic hierarchy of spacetime- but any observable region that is connected into a universe cannot see beyond their absolute horizons and are FINITE in information-
I think that any CONTINUUM model is unphysical because it requires infinite information as real numbers to exist within a specific universe- I do not think that infinite information works because it bogs itself down so that all its degrees of freedom flatten and it cannot ever get anywhere- no change/motion/time- but as I said FRACTAL hierarchies and chaotic network models of spacetime can have an infinite scale but structures within them separate and clump into cliques - decohered systems that are no longer strongly connected beyond their causal boundaries- so any specific reality is FINITE-
so in essence any infinite set will self seperate into self-bounded finite regions from it's own entropy setting up a hierarchy of causal horizons - entropy prevents any divide-by-zero situations absoltuely!
instead of considering the observable bits of your reality as the bottom-up building blocks of reality from the past-forward- I think we need to shift to Monist models starting with the observer and consider the bits as the qualia quanta- or perceivable moments of an observer- in our reality that is the human brain's action potential in the neuron- it is no coincidence that the average frequency of action potentials in the brain and the actual size of the action potential as the diameter of the neural soma are both EXACTLY at the center of the space and time scales in our observable universe- http://www.artistserver.com/member/index.cfm/a/9587/blog/2554
it should also be considered that the Beckenstein Bound itself seems to be far from where our reality can reach- the Holographic Principle says that a black hole with the mass of the earth- 10^24 kg - at about a cm in diameter- has a limit of 10^66 bits based on Planck areas per cm^2- and each of these bits is flipping once per Planck time at 10^-44 sec- so an earth mass black hole has 10^66 bits at 10^110 ops- but Seth Lloyd calculated the MAXIMUM amount of OBSERVABLE bits/ops and thus harness-able for computation or ANY PHYSICALLY REAL PROCESS- and setting the limit for a real object/system in our reality at 10^31 bits at 10^51 ops per kg- for an earth mass black hole that is 10^55 bits at 10^75 ops- but the Beckenstein Bound is 10^66 bits and they should be flipping at 10^110 ops! that is billions of times the bits and decillions of times the ops! so obviously even the Planck scale seems to be somewhat beyond our true causal horizon
Posted 6 months ago # -
Mnemomeme
Memberthat's a lot of numbers and stuff... are you talking about... I need to learn calculus damnit.
If two trains leave chicago in opposite directions at the speed of light, and one signals the other with a flash, how long does it take for the signal to reach the other train?
This question is designed to help someone understand that we can only see the pizza-slice of the universe that's moving approximately the same vector and speed that we are, while the vast majority of the universe is relativistically moving faster than the light that would report its presence in some other direction away from us... which I think you just described as cliquing up.The last time I described this thought to a physicist, he said it violates relativity, so I asked why the universe is fourteen times wider than it is old, and he didn't respond with anything intelligible. Seems odd to me though that the size of the universe would be a square of its age... squares don't seem like something that should actually make sense unless there is some sort of reflection going on... I mean... if light actually moved 54 billion lightyears in only 15 billion years, or whatever the heck they're deciding the numbers are this month... why is the universe so much bigger than it is old? Just the visible portion even, which is a tiny fraction of the whole?
imho, the whole damn standard model is kinda stupid.
Posted 6 months ago # -
nanostuff
MemberI need to learn calculus
Nothing he said requires the faintest knowledge of calculus, not that this should discourage you from learning it.how long does it take for the signal to reach the other train?
The signal never reaches the other train.The last time I described this thought to a physicist, he said it violates relativity
It does. Massy particles do not reach the speed of light. The energy function for velocity has a vertical asymptote at the speed of light; meaning that the energy requirements are unbounded as velocity approaches c.so I asked why the universe is fourteen times wider than it is old, and he didn't respond with anything intelligible.
He didn't respond with anything intelligible because your question doesn't make the faintest sense. Time and distance are not comparable metrics. You're fortunate enough he had the patience not to boot you out of the room at this point.Seems odd to me though that the size of the universe would be a square of its age
What do you mean by size of the universe? If a volumetric space expands in a manner such that the displacement between two points is linear over time, the surface of the space will expand quadratically and volume cubically.Posted 6 months ago # -
Mnemomeme
MemberThe signal never reaches the other train.
Exactly. This means that if there was infact a big bang, we can only see the parts moving less than C in relation to our vector, which is a tiny portion.
Massy particles do not reach the speed of light.
Okay, so half the speed of light, so what, doesn't change the problem. ;)
Time and distance are not comparable metrics.
If the speed of light is fixed, and nothing moves faster than it, then the universe should be it's age (in years) x2 lightyears wide. Expansion is another issue, if indeed expansion is an accurate way of describing it.
What do you mean by size of the universe? If a volumetric space expands in a manner such that the displacement between two points is linear over time, the surface of the space will expand quadratically and volume cubically.
Is this meaningful? I mean, aren't you actually describing some sort of compression, rather than expansion? I mean, sure we can define all fruit as apples and then make statements about apples, but if someone tosses an orange into the mix, you're just calling it an apple, that doesn't make it stop being an orange.What I mean to say is... there's this giant hole in the standard model where it concerns gravity and the expansion of space, there's like a dozen problems with it where it just breaks or has holes or is so inaccurate we can't even use the model for anything. Black holes, cold dark matter, transdimensional particles we can't find.. you know, the usual "oh don't worry we actually do know everything, don't mind the spackle" kind of junk.
I clearly don't understand this whole "size of a void" thing, and wouldn't even begin to pretend that I do. Making up "volumetric space" and "space/time noodles" or whatever just doesn't satisfy my curiosity. The idea that the whole damn universe is shrinking into the event horizon of a black hole so big it's swallowing the universe... also doesn't really make sense to me. In fact none of it really makes sense to anyone, it's a guess about things we can't do experiments on or even pretend we're measuring accurately. We thought we knew what gravity was all about until we started sending stuff to the moon and discovered that we are flat freaking wrong.
Anyway, playing with the models are fun, so I need calculus. :)
Posted 6 months ago # -
Z
MemberWhile that response cleared up some of my questions I was wondering if you might be able clarify wheter one would be able to have infinite computation without black holes or fractal cosmology, even though there are such bizarre atomic constants and there is no quantum mechanics, because h[/i] is zero. And if so do you have any suggestions as to stable configurations of baryonic or perhaps nonbaryonic substrate matter that does not involve electrons or atomic particles(perhaps subatomic or superstrings as mentioned in my first post?) Thanks Set!
Posted 6 months ago # -
learning Integral calculus does help you understand how laws of physics that use statistical correlations between systems with varying degrees of 'decoherence' between them can in principle succesfully compress infinite information from the environment into small finite integrals- you can easily and quickly see if some function converges/diverges as it approaches infinity - and generate very accurate statistical curves for some process taken to infinite iterations
Posted 6 months ago # -
nanostuff
MemberIf the speed of light is fixed, and nothing moves faster than it, then the universe should be it's age (in years) x2 lightyears wide.
There are no known constraints on the rate of expansion of the universe. Velocity constraints only apply to objects within it. This is why we have the event horizon and an indeterminate size.there's this giant hole in the standard model
There are holes in much of physics and will remain so for the foreseeable future.Posted 6 months ago # -
@z- I think there could be some possible forms of infinite computation with various kinds of closed timelike curves- in String Theory lately I am interested in the E8 Lie Group Theory approach to building the Standard Model - some of the philosophical implications of that approach suggest perhaps methods of infinite computation by harnessing exotic extended permutations of superstrings that fold through higher dimensions and harness some kind of landscape computation- but my money is on black holes- and more specifically artificial event horizons - I think even if you can generate hypercomputation there are likely built-in limits to physics that bottle-neck it to within Lloyd's limits- or at least the Beckenstein Bound-
edit: regardless of what hypercomputation approach turns out best- I am confident it will use a photonic bit/qubit as the substrate
Posted 6 months ago # -
but you can't get past the LLOYD Limit- which seems to be the real law of the land - it cuts us off from infinity- possibly
BUT there should be no reason why you couldn't LEAVE THE UNVERSE to a universe or view of the multiverse where you can access infinite information- maybe- but if you came back to our universe you would have to compress what you know about the hypercomputation's output within the finite limits of our world - information conservation- and whatever information you brought would displace an equivalent amount of information here- through the storage medium
Posted 6 months ago # -
purpose
Memberbut you can't get past the LLOYD Limit- which seems to be the real law of the land - it cuts us off from infinity- possibly
BUT there should be no reason why you couldn't LEAVE THE UNVERSE to a universe or view of the multiverse where you can access infinite information- maybe- but if you came back to our universe you would have to compress what you know about the hypercomputation's output within the finite limits of our world - information conservation- and whatever information you brought would displace an equivalent amount of information here- through the storage medium
It is still quite possible and perhaps even more probable that one does not need to leave our universe at all. The recent findings that QED varies smoothly from one edge of our Hubble volume to other has some seriously profound implications. Perhaps all of the laws and constants vary with relative local, in such a way where any particular law/constant may vary in different proportionality to the others. Suggesting that such an infinity is actually an organized structure, a continuous and absolute phase space. Instead of a multiverse, we have a true omniverse where equivalent dimensions are on the same world line and only higher or lower dimensions are parallel, but only gradually so..
Posted 6 months ago # -
Z
MemberYes, but the lloyd limit involves the equation which tells you how fast you flip a bit, which involves dividing by planck's constant. and his equation for calculating the computational capacity of the universe, also involves dividing by planck's constant. I can give you the link if you would like.
Posted 6 months ago # -
EyeOrderChaos
MemberIf the big bang is an em-motional outburst, and the qualia quanta trans-act into timed compositions...why is that so complicated? It just means that all structure is a fossilized record of feeling, and trying to describe what makes feeling tick by examining structure both illuminates and misses the point, and always will. Light shines on what is "there" (illuminates) but it doesn't shine on itself (misses the point).
Posted 6 months ago # -
Lloyd uses several theoretical approaches to calculate the ops limit- the important consideration is the ops limit placed by Boltzmann's constant and a maximum tempurature of operation- so a definite limit imposed on ops independent of Planck's consant- the empirical fact of quantized energy states means you have a minimum and maximum operating tempurature for a computation inside this universe-
Posted 6 months ago # -
sensoniq
MemberLight shines on what is "there" (illuminates) but it doesn't shine on itself (misses the point).
This reminds me of how, according to simulation theory, our entire reality can be defined as information (or information processing within the simulators' host hypercomputers), except information itself -- its very fundamental multiversal essence seems indefinable. I suppose we could accept the notion that "information" is the only articulable entity in the multiverse that can only be defined by itself, but that would seem particularly peculiar...Perhaps information's indefinable nature (within a simulated universe) is the very culprit fundamentally responsible for Incompleteness Theorum...
In any case, "light shines on what is "there" but it doesn't shine on itself"...
Just seems to go hand in hand with "information describes what is "there" but it doesn't describe itself"
Posted 6 months ago # -
Yes, but temperature can also be defined as entropy, and the beckenstein bound also specified how much entropy can be contained in a spherical region with finite mass energy. Here's the link so you can see for yourself.
just so- this success of the Holographic Principle to explain the value of Boltzmann's entropy tells us that we can trust in Planck's Constant- and that the Holographic Principle is quite strong-
but as I said earlier I don't think the limit of the Planck scale is some absolute grain- it's imposed or emergent from the physics- it's programmed in- which means it might be hacked for hypercomputation by accessing resources beyond the program's normal operating resources- in other words: hack root
Posted 6 months ago # -
I won't rule out any hypercomputation scheme- but I think there will always be problems with trying go deal with infinite information- I don't think you can - but there might be plenty of loop-holes especially using closed timelike loops- so I wouldnt be totally shocked if you could build an infinite hypercomputer- but as far as formalizing a physics that actually reduces Planck's Constant to zero or something like that I think is unfeasible because too many experiments and well tested theories can only work with h-bar as it is- you play with any of these constants and you get unphysical abortive universes-
Posted 6 months ago # -
purpose
MemberI won't rule out any hypercomputation scheme- but I think there will always be problems with trying go deal with infinite information- I don't hhink you can - but there might be plenty of loop-holes especially using closed timelike loops- but as far as formalizing a physics that actually reduces Planck's Constant to zero or something like that I think is unfeasible because too many experiments and well tested theories can only work with h-bar as it is- you play with any of these constans and you get unphysical abortive universes-
If other constants can vary over spacetime, is there any reason to assume that Planck cannot as well? I agree that an infinite amount of information in a finite space is nonsense. But I do not see that a hard limit is obviously true.
Posted 6 months ago # -
I think it's a self imposed limit that always forms at the opposite scale from the cosmological horizon of WHATEVER physics an observer is running on- but there may be no upper limit - hence a transfinite limit- but I don't think our universe even quite hits the Planck scale itself- but there may be no countable limit for some other universe- or even weirder a countable limit that is so big it's too big to even quantify or name- I would bet there are plenty of large finite systems big enough to fool anyone in a countably finite system that it is infinite anyway- but that is another subject: God's sense of humor
Posted 6 months ago # -
Z
MemberI don't understand why you think infinite information in a finite space is nonsense, as that is what is required for the Tiplerian Omega Point many members of this forum seem to be proponents of, Set included. So how is that not limited by the Beckenstein Bound if the Omega point occurs in a universe in which h is not zero?
Posted 6 months ago # -
the Tiplerian Omega Point is NOT an infinite state machine- but a VERY different kind of machine called an infinite time Turing machine- it does not store infinite information in space but rather compresses and warps time TOWARD a singularity at infinite relative distance so you have a COUNTABLY infinite series of FINITE computations that are ever faster as they approach the final singularity-
and strictly speaking a countable infinite is actually TRANSFINITE - consider that NO observer within the Omega Point computation - no matter how far in - will measure an infinite amount of operations since the singularity formed and their current position along the tape- and none EVER will- instead any observer will find themselves a FINITE number of steps from the first step and will see an infinite horizon of time ahead- ALWAYS- this is unboundedly TRANSFINITE - not true infinity- in fact considering causal horizons and cliques it isn't very long before an observer cannot see the BEGINNING either- and finds themselves embedded in a seemingly eternal sea of ops self-bounded within causal horizons
this is also why closed timelike curves are a promising hypercomputer substrate- no computation would ever be infinite or it would not halt and escape the loop for output- but any transfinite finite computation without limit is performed in 1 op to an outside observer- it's a realistic and practical possibility over some infinite state machine
also- there is the likelihood that due to absolute self-bounded networks from entropy the cosmos might merely be a FINITE transfinite- like a doubly exponential or at most the Busy Beaver computation that computes a network that contains the whole configuration space of local observers within all possible causal horizons- that may be ALL there is
here is an old blog post on trasnfinity:
since I posit a model of simple algorithmic recursion through FEEDBACK- this results in a feedback space of self-interactions resulting in an immanent matrix that is unboundedly transfinite- which is a MUCH weirder yet more rational idea than infinity- because transfinite numbers are real but still finite yet BIG- and in a feedback system no matter how big the sample you are looking at the system as a whole will always feed back into the cosmic algorithm and get further reflected outward and inward into much much bigger expansions of the original sample set- ALWAYS- without bound- but NEVER reaching infinity- observers always have a beginning but never an end yet never reach infinity
this has implications for the Omega Point and the idea of observer's eventually becoming/returning to God- the issue is the same as Cantor and Gödel and Turing faced- the whole configuration space of the Cosmos includes the Omega Point- the Cosmic monad and the Omega point are like the poles of a sphere- they form the boundaries which establish a rational way to posit a self-generated boundary condition through self-dampening feedback without the universe being curved on itself in some higher dimensional background space- thus provide an existential basis for finite quantum gravity theories- yet there is no LIMIT on the size of this boundary- since the cosmos is a feedback system any established boundary is fed back into the cosmic algorithm and leaves you with a vaster space surrounding the defined boundary that is made of configurations of that boundary condition- as we observe in our reality- and as we see in axiomatic systems- always something outside any throw of the net no matter how big it is
yet from the perspective of the Omega Point the cosmos is a structure AT some kind of countable infinity like Aleph One- but no discrete observer can ever get there- since any boundary an observer establishes is immediately blown up by the cosmic feedback ontology-
but the boundary might be a finite transfinite- due to LOCALITY our ideas of spaces and structures are wrong because we assume some kind of simultaneity to structures- that separate regions and states exist simultaneously- but they really don't - and the ontology of cosmic feedback recursion reveals this: everything is a linear structure of simple feedback cycles of the Monad unfolded into higher dimensions- this means that ultimately all state's are really quite tiny sets of linear interactions- not objects in multiple dimensions at once- the delay of linear reactions means a low but transfinite limit for local cohesion of any system- whether conscious or not-
the locality issue might really make any large system really permutations of smaller sub-systems that are bounded by the locality delay- ultimately the whole universe could be the permutation of a small algorithm of only 10-100 bits- perhaps an even smaller source code- like the six bit system of the I Ching- 2 three bit triangulations reflecting each other- providing a feedback oscillation system which could unfold through self-reflected permutation as some kind of causal network like Loll's Causal Dynamical Triangulations
so God MAY be reachable with the right simple algorithm- an Eheyeh algorithm that builds upon itself recursively to Omega
Posted 6 months ago # -
I don't understand. Set like always seems to be posting opposing postulations (or factual predictions?) about literal eternal heavens and total oblivion. He confuses me a lot.
I think the key to your confusion is RECURSION - nothing lasts- not even OBLIVION- so we fade but always come back again- and being universal systems- whatever was lost can always be regained- so the Wheel of the Law makes gods of us beasts- eternal and omnipotent- like film frames perforating the Abyss
think about it for a minute- we can prove we are gods because we discovered and contain UNIVERSAL COMPUTATION- our reign is finite and will be absorbed by Oblivion BUT we go from random ignorant animal to universal computation reclaiming and controlling the Akashic Record - the Configuration Space of all possible Observers and all possible existences- and it takes only a few thousand years! a few thousand years to compile a Cosmic Network of all possible being in total godhood that can remain coherent for quintillions of centuries or more- we have obliviated Oblivion! made it mute and moot- even if we could endure Eternity the infinitesimal time it takes to recompile the Akashic Network from NOTHING is so trivially small that memory is obsolete and Oblivion disappears up it's own ass-hole
Posted 6 months ago # -
Milo
MemberIt should be noted that RECURSION is not a physical law of some kind
we can prove we are gods because we discovered and contain UNIVERSAL COMPUTATION
- it is extremely speculative that we "contain" UNIVERSAL COMPUTATION. Physical reality is not "computed", universal or otherwise
- even if the above were somehow true, that has nothing to do with being a god. Stating over and over and over that you're a god is egomaniacal rather than factual.Posted 6 months ago # -
I think any infinite state machine will not function- it will not be able to change or compute at all without breaking up into finite chunks that cant communicate with each other
yet considering concepts like BLOCK TIME- that you can have an immanent structure that contains all possible causal slices- and so does not NEED Time to change- means perhaps the Multiverse itself IS a kind of infinite state machine you could harness - so I won't rule it out!
flip-flop! (^___-)
Posted 6 months ago # -
PJT
Memberthink about it for a minute- we can prove we are gods because we discovered and contain UNIVERSAL COMPUTATION- our reign is finite and will be absorbed by Oblivion BUT we go from random ignorant animal to universal computation reclaiming and controlling the Akashic Record - the Configuration Space of all possible Observers and all possible existences- and it takes only a few thousand years! a few thousand years to compile a Cosmic Network of all possible being in total godhood that can remain coherent for quintillions of centuries or more- we have obliviated Oblivion! made it mute and moot- even if we could endure Eternity the infinitesimal time it takes to recompile the Akashic Network from NOTHING is so trivially small that memory is obsolete and Oblivion disappears up it's own ass-hole
This is kind of incoherent. How does one merely "come back" from oblivion? It's oblivion, the final and total cessation of existence altogether. You're saying we'll eventually fall into it but we won't? This doesn't strike me as a situation where paradoxes apply. If what you say about recursion is true then that means it must've already happened an infinite number of times before and it will continue to do so without end.
What does it mean to control the Akashic Record and see all possible existences if it ends up being destroyed like everything else? Is the Akashic Record that eventually gets controlled in a separate universe the exact same one or is it a different one, a copy viewing the same information? And if we got to reclaim and conrol such a thing why would we allow our existence to end at all? From what you're saying it sounds to me that the Akashic Record is a truly eternal thing that will endure regardless of how many universes are extinguished in its wake. Does such a thing not count as an entity of truly eternal knowledge? Could we not become one with it?
Posted 6 months ago # -
I see the issue here- I am referring to PERSONAL and species/civilization oblivion of becoming other or personal dissolution into death- you seem to be referring to some COSMIC oblivion where everything falls into Nothing- THAT IS NOT POSSIBLE Even in principle- the Cosmos Exists- its immanence makes the Multiverse Eternal - Time may begin and end from the POV of permutations of causal topology out of the cosmic singularity but these emerge from an immanent/eternal structure that EXISTS- so any dissolving form within the cosmos will drift and fade from entropy but ALWAYS recur-
and anyway even if the cosmos could cease to exist truly- that means it MUST have come into existence and will do so AGAIN infinite times- but this creation-ex-nihilo ontology doesn't logically work and suggests a deeper multiverse that is a total plenum of infinite multiverses in their own existences since existence can spring from nothing and disappear into nothing- that kind of 'multi-multiverse' wouldn't be a logical configuration space of causal forms- but a true Chaos of 'Cantgotu Environments' and impossible/paradoxical universes
it is impossible for any discrete finite observer reality to endure forever- but
it is impossible for the WHOLE Cosmos to cease to existthus Being- all possible universes- RECUR in this eternity
and YES- the very nature of universal computation and the ontology of accelerating information/novelty explicitly defines the Akashic Record as an eternal wavelike form that emerges at the cusps of transitory universes- it does not need to endure in each reality since it's Platonic form is always renewed and recompiled in trivial time by any universal process- in another universe before ours a civilization was born- and over aeons conquered their universe- but after eternities the universe flew apart in a Big Rip- now our universe is in the process of recompiling them- in just a few decades that whole civilization and ALL OTHERS will be recompiled in our Cosmic Network as if they never were gone- because they weren't
it appears also that physics may accomplish an eternal network AUTOMATICALLY- as I mentioned in the Black Hole Era thread the quantum computational nature of black hole horizons means that after all matter and clock-like systems dissipate in the degenerate matter era space outside of black holes will be dimensionless and flatten the cosmological horizon against the event horizon- this sets up a possible condition for the Hawking radiation qubits at the horizon and photons at the photon sphere to be truly isolated and freely perform quantum computations through entanglement entropy BACKWARD and forward through time- setting up a system of vast quantum computation capable of projecting multitudes of holographic virtual spaces running on a substrate of qubits LOOPING in time and thus TRULY eternal and recursive - all worlds are likely simulations in the atemporal eternal quantum computation of these cosmic scale black hole horizons-
oh- and the entire concept of 'copies' is fatally flawed and incorrect- when you play a video game and see two identical trees in the game-world do you think that the programmers took the time to render a 'copy' of a tree they already coded and constructed a second identical/similar tree? of course not- they simply made ONE tree subroutine and called it up at two locations in the game map- the same logic applies to physical reality - duplicate forms are the SAME form expressed and called-up by physics at different locations- similar objects are the same form with variations- we can strongly show this is TRUE because automatically it provides a rational mechanism for all forms of entanglement and resonance as well as all fields [including and especially Sheldrake's Morphic Fields]- similar objects and objects that have become entangled don't need 'spooky action at a distance' to communicate - they are ONE ENTITY- a subroutine in the algorithm of physics that is being called up and addressed at different locations- if you change one instance it will change the subroutine and so change all the extant forms calling up that subroutine-relationships of form and causal structure are more fundamental than spacetime- so we shouldn't be confused and invent wrong concepts like 'copies'
Posted 6 months ago # -
Z
Member@ Set Just had a disturbing thought, if the Planck length is the point where strings come into being, and if h is zero the Planck length is zero, wouldn't that mean that matter could never exist because strings wouldn't come to be?I hope I'm wrong, but you probably know more than I do , so perhaps you can explain.
Posted 6 months ago # -
I have a notion that matter cannot exist- I think the constants are too finely tuned to ever happen naturally- which means we are a holographic simulation of POSSIBLE physics running on a computer in a universe whose physics are likely more like the entropy of a Black Hole Horizon- since virtually all types of universes simply collapse into black holes and chaotic photons in most physics- matter requires three dimensions and time- yet it also requires two dimensional entropy- meaning matter by definition is a kind of illusion of some holographic physics
Posted 6 months ago # -
well- we can watch and predict what happens by simulating many possible universes sorted according to their value for Planck's Constant - we can predict some general features with Relativity/ QM/String Theory and the Standard Model- nearly ALL values of Planck's Constant in relationship to Newton's/ Boltzmann's/c/etc gives you abortive universes- Not just universes without stable matter but unstable spacetime that clogs and collapses into singularities or rips apart with explosive cosmological constants- in only ONE universe- ours- do we see stable carbon bonding and metastable protons- but as we decrease the value you get bigger and bigger black hole horizons in terms of Planck area bits and matter itself becoming too massive to avoid collapse- very quickly as you approach zero you get universes with no matter but black holes whose horizons have transfinite bits/operations per second-these zero Planck constant universes would consist only of infinite mass black holes with infinite holographic computation at their horizons - totally Simulist universes where all form and intelligence MUST evolve due to sheer brute force of computation - but no matter could ever exist- as far as branes go you would get solutions where all dimensions remain curled up- or collapse and no space can form- MOST universes are like this- ours is either impossibly rare or a con job
Posted 6 months ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post. If you haven't created an account yet, click here.