[HN Gopher] Algorithmic Theories of Everything
___________________________________________________________________
Algorithmic Theories of Everything
Author : canjobear
Score : 55 points
Date : 2020-08-08 17:49 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (arxiv.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (arxiv.org)
| techbio wrote:
| Going from the title, it's all just a materialized Fibonacci Heap
| (though the abstract would disagree with me).
| scribu wrote:
| IMHO, a better title would be " _Probabilistic_ Theories Of
| Everything "
|
| Contrast with the recent work from David Deutsch, which
| eliminates all probabilities from physics.
|
| Intro to Constructor Theory: https://youtu.be/wfzSE4Hoxbc
| platz wrote:
| this is basically just what happens in any deterministic hidden
| variable theory
| asdfasgasdgasdg wrote:
| Yeah, the aliens who are simulating us could be using a 64
| bit prng at the quantum level and we would still never know
| the difference, because our measurement technology isn't
| there. The universe would be deterministic but it's unlikely
| that we'd ever be able to prove it, unless they left
| breadcrumbs intentionally.
| xenonite wrote:
| Jurgen Schmidhuber, in the year 2000
| m3kw9 wrote:
| Can someone explain in layman's terms?
| GrantS wrote:
| ELI5 is: If the universe is computable, might we be in the
| _simplest_ computable universe or the _fastest_ computable
| universe? Can computer science and math help us figure out the
| reasons for the physics that run our world?
| Or_does_not wrote:
| 'Others, are... (whispers) _antipoles_ '
|
| Ask yourself: 'Mister, if i believed you, who'd believe me ?'
| (-;
| jarym wrote:
| Well I'd love to give GPT3 the abstract as a starting point and
| see what comes out the other end!
| platz wrote:
| the hype cycle is alive and well!
| msapaydin wrote:
| Here is what comes out: "The history of our universe is a
| sequence of random events. Each event is the result of a very
| small probability, and the events are independent of each
| other. The probability that any particular event will happen is
| very small. So the probability that any particular event will
| happen twice is even smaller. So the probability that any
| particular event will happen twice in a row is even smaller. So
| the probability that any particular event will happen three
| times in a row is even smaller. And so on."
| whymauri wrote:
| "The probability that any particular event will happen is
| very small. So the probability that any particular event will
| happen twice is even smaller. So the probability that any
| particular event will happen twice in a row is even smaller.
| So the probability that any particular event will happen
| three times in a row is even smaller."
|
| This sounds like a meta-joke, lol.
| taberiand wrote:
| "So the probability that any particular event will happen
| four times in a row is looking a little suspicious. Five is
| right out"
| ooobit2 wrote:
| "And I'm not even going to entertain the probability of
| six, though I can confirm it will be exactly as many
| degrees of separation from Kevin Bacon."
| msapaydin wrote:
| Another attempt to gpt-3 filtering the intro section of the
| paper: This book is about how we can guess what will happen
| in the future. The first chapter is about how we can guess
| the next number in a sequence. The second chapter is about
| how we can guess the next word in a sentence. The third
| chapter is about how we can guess the next word in a book.
| The fourth chapter is about how we can guess the next word in
| all the books ever written. The fifth chapter is about how we
| can guess the next word in all the books ever written
| msapaydin wrote:
| This is also gpt-3 output based on the abstract as if
| explaining to an eight grader: The theory of everything (TOE)
| is a mathematical formula that can predict everything that will
| happen in the future. It is a theory of everything, so it can
| predict what will happen to the universe, and to us. We assume
| that the TOE is simple enough for us to understand, but we
| don't know for sure.
| ksr wrote:
| When all the combinations have been played out, the universe will
| halt.
| cromwellian wrote:
| If I read this right, it's saying we live in a universe with
| either a short program, or a fast program (program here means
| theory). From an algorithmic information theory standpoint, this
| seems to suggest whatever fundamental theory of physics we find,
| it'll be short. I'm wondering if this points more to a cellular
| automata style theory being at the root of reality. Maybe Wolfram
| was right?
| thecupisblue wrote:
| I assume it's a simple "cellular automata style theory", a
| coroutine like recursive function that once we discover, we
| will notice is obvious at every scale we look at. Wolfram is
| definitely heading in the right direction. I remember a movie
| called Digital Physics having a similar plot.
| jchook wrote:
| First there's none, And so just one. Yet none and one are
| two.
|
| Once there's two They share a room, Hence there now are
| three.
|
| Remembering the two before, The three completes the five, And
| on the numbers multiply Until they are complete.
| amelius wrote:
| Why are we not living in a universe with _all_ possible
| theories (short and long), and there is only one of these
| theories which we actually see? Of course, enumerating all
| possible theories might be actually a simple program ...
| 0-_-0 wrote:
| >Why are we not living in a universe with all possible
| theories?
|
| We are! At least if the article's assumptions are correct,
| which I think they are.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-08-09 23:00 UTC)