rissa@chinet.UUCP (Patricia O Tuama) (03/20/88)
From the April ATLANTIC MONTHLY: "Did the Universe Just Happen?" by Robert Wright Controversial scientist Edward Fredkin says no -- that the universe is a computer, and was built for a purpose. Fredkin believes that information is more fundamental than matter or energy, that all of reality is governed by a single programming rule, and that the uni- verse may have been created to get the answer to a question. ------------------------------------------------------------------- The universe is a computer, designed to answer a question. Why does this sound so familiar? . t r i s h a o t u a m a
srg2@ur-tut (Stacey Greenstein) (03/20/88)
In article <3829@chinet.UUCP> rissa@chinet.UUCP (Patricia O Tuama) writes: >From the April ATLANTIC MONTHLY: >"Did the Universe Just Happen?" by Robert Wright >Controversial scientist Edward Fredkin says no -- that the universe >is a computer, and was built for a purpose. Fredkin believes that >information is more fundamental than matter or energy, that all of >reality is governed by a single programming rule, and that the uni- >verse may have been created to get the answer to a question. >------------------------------------------------------------------- >The universe is a computer, designed to answer a question. >Why does this sound so familiar? > . > t r i s h a o t u a m a Well, let me think. If forty-two just happened to pop into my head, would you say it were a coincidence, or that the programming has lead me to think of the number forty-two? If the Universe is indeed a giagantic computer, Douglas Adams would be an integral part of its programming, I would say! If Fredkin is correct, then forty-two may only be just a step along the way towards the final answer. Forty-two may just be the final answer hypercoded Recursively so that the remaining program is just what is needed to decoded the number forty-two. Or this could all be just the mindless babblings of a twenty year old who has yet to go to bed and it is past four fifteen in the morning... -- US Mail: Stacey Robert Greenstein BITNET: srg2@uordb1 P. O. Box 30202 ARPA: srg2@tut.cc.rochester.edu Rochester, NY 14627 Phone: (716)244-9890 UUCP: {allegra, seismo, rutgers}!rochester!ur-tut!srg2
vu0112@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Cliff Joslyn) (03/21/88)
In article <1441@ur-tut.UUCP> srg2@tut.cc.rochester.edu.UUCP (Stacey Greenstein) writes: >In article <3829@chinet.UUCP> rissa@chinet.UUCP (Patricia O Tuama) writes: >>The universe is a computer, designed to answer a question. >>Why does this sound so familiar? >> . >> t r i s h a o t u a m a Let's say I take all the information in all the encyclopedieas and reference books and catalogs of biochemical compounds and make and ASCII text file out of them, and then come up with an umpteen-zillion long decimal number that represents this long text file, and then construct a ruler one inch long calibrated to the umpteen-zillionth of an inch. I can now specify a single point in an inch representing all the knowledge in the world. . . Information is not meaning Meaning is at least information Nothing is determined There is no answer O----------------------------------------------------------------------> | Cliff Joslyn, Professional Cybernetician | Systems Science Department, SUNY Binghamton, New York, but my opinions | vu0112@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu V All the world is biscuit shaped. . .
srg2@ur-tut (Stacey Greenstein) (03/21/88)
In article <974@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu> vu0112@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Cliff Joslyn) writes: >Let's say I take all the information in all the encyclopedieas and >reference books and catalogs of biochemical compounds and make and ASCII >text file out of them, and then come up with an umpteen-zillion long >decimal number that represents this long text file, and then construct a >ruler one inch long calibrated to the umpteen-zillionth of an inch. I >can now specify a single point in an inch representing all the knowledge >in the world. . . I never said anything about simplicity. What you have is an EASY method of encoding. The more you encode, the more information you need to decode, the more time it will take to decode the code. Therefore if forty-two is indeed the hyper-encoded answer, the end result may take several billions of years to work itself out. Or I could be wrong and forty-two is the answer, and someone forgot to turn off the ... <<<<<CLICK!!!>>>>> -- US Mail: Stacey Robert Greenstein BITNET: srg2@uordb1 P. O. Box 30202 ARPA: srg2@tut.cc.rochester.edu Rochester, NY 14627 Phone: (716)244-9890 UUCP: {allegra, seismo, rutgers}!rochester!ur-tut!srg2
mincy@think.COM (Jeffrey Mincy) (03/22/88)
In article <1448@ur-tut.UUCP> srg2@tut.cc.rochester.edu.UUCP (Stacey Greenstein) writes: >In article <974@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu> vu0112@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Cliff Joslyn) writes: >>Let's say I take all the information in all the encyclopedieas and >>reference books and catalogs of biochemical compounds and make and ASCII >>text file out of them, and then come up with an umpteen-zillion long >>decimal number that represents this long text file, and then construct a >>ruler one inch long calibrated to the umpteen-zillionth of an inch. I >>can now specify a single point in an inch representing all the knowledge >>in the world. . . >I never said anything about simplicity. What you have is an EASY method of >encoding. The more you encode, the more information you need to decode, the >more time it will take to decode the code. Therefore if forty-two is indeed >the hyper-encoded answer, the end result may take several billions of years >to work itself out. Or I could be wrong and forty-two is the answer, and >someone forgot to turn off the ... Actually, the problem of this approach is not that the result will take billions of years to work out. The real problem is that you can not specify a single point on your inch ruler. Somehow you are going to have to mark the ruler. If your point is the size of an atom then you are limited to oh maybe 10^8 possible positions. That only gives you an 8 digit long decimal number, hardly the zillions that you need. I suppose that it is possible that you could use a point smaller than an atom to mark the ruler. However, at a certain point, uncertainty kicks in and you will not be able to measure the point. >US Mail: Stacey Robert Greenstein BITNET: srg2@uordb1 -- jeff seismo!godot.think.com!mincy
srg2@ur-tut (Stacey Greenstein) (03/22/88)
What you have said about marking a ruler is all well and good, IF YOU ARE
USING A RULER! If you are using just just numbers, life becomes much
easier...
--
US Mail: Stacey Robert Greenstein BITNET: srg2@uordb1
P. O. Box 30202 ARPA: srg2@tut.cc.rochester.edu
Rochester, NY 14627 Phone: (716)244-9890
UUCP: {allegra, seismo, rutgers}!rochester!ur-tut!srg2newsome@dasys1.UUCP (Richard Newsome) (03/30/88)
Does anyone out there know where I can get more information about Fredkin's ideas? In particular, does anyone know how the billiard-ball computer works? Why can't you program an ordinary computer to emulate it? If it is based on calculating the vectors of the billiard balls to the ten-billionth place after the decimal point, doesn't that conflict with his notion that this is a digital universe...or is he saying that we can store infinite amounts of information in a finite number of bits, by using God as our overflow memory buffer? -- Richard Newsome Big Electric Cat Public UNIX ..!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!newsome