I'm into Information theory, but I don't understand the question.

I'm into Information theory, but I don't understand the question. — Gnomon

Well, the question is pretty straightforward. If the universe is expanding, then new state spaces are arising and hence information.

I guess the question is whether the universe expands or contracts more rapidly in our universe as opposed to some other one?

I guess the question is whether the universe expands or contracts more rapidly in our universe as opposed to some other one? — Wallows

You'll have to ask someone familiar with simulated universes. I only know a little about how the real universe (base reality???) works. But I guess any expansion or contraction would depend on the specific simulation program, and initial conditions, which are both forms of Information. What prompted such a question?

PS__I have an information-based theory of state transformations (novel state spaces) in the real world. But it's probably not detailed enough for your needs.

What prompted such a question? — Gnomon

I'll send you a PM.

PS__I have an information-based theory of state transformations (novel state spaces) in the real world. But it's probably not detailed enough for your needs. — Gnomon

Please share that too.

PS__I have an information-based theory of state transformations (novel state spaces) in the real world. But it's probably not technical enough for your needs. — Gnomon
Please share that too. — Wallows

Here's a link to the EnFormAction Hypothesis. The popup in Note 2 gives more details on Emergence, Phase Transitions and Quantum Leaps. But the essay is not supported with mathematical calculations. It's just a metaphorical myth, to illustrate my Information-based worldview.

The EnFormAction Hypothesis : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

The EnFormAction Hypothesis : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html — Gnomon

In a non-deterministic universe that would all be true. But, this isn't a non-deterministic universe, is it?

Think solipsism...

In a non-deterministic universe that would all be true. But, this isn't a non-deterministic universe, is it? — Wallows

It's both. I view the universe metaphorically as a computer program processing Information. The mechanics of the process is predetermined, but the output is open to serendipity (random chance). Hence, there is FreeWill within Determinism. The end-state is not pre-determined.


Evolutionary Programming :
Special computer algorithms inspired by biological Natural Selection. It is similar to Genetic Programming in that it relies on internal competition between random alternative solutions to weed-out inferior results, and to pass-on superior answers to the next generation of algorithms. By means of such optimizing feedback loops, evolution is able to make progress toward the best possible solution – limited only by local restraints – to the original programmer’s goal or purpose. In Enformationism theory the Prime Programmer is portrayed as a creative deity, who uses bottom-up mechanisms, rather than top-down miracles, to produce a world with both freedom & determinism, order & meaning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_programming

"the structure of the program to be optimized is fixed, while its numerical parameters are allowed to evolve."

The end-state is not pre-determined. — Gnomon

And what would it take for that to be true?

Are you Kevin Langdon?

And what would it take for that to be true? — Wallows

The programmer defines the parameters for success, but not the final form. The program gradually evolves an optimized form to meet the designer's requirements. The heuristic trial & error path from start to finish is erratic, and similar to Hegel's Dialectic. It is deterministic in its teleological goal, but allows freedom to try novel forms, and then to test them for conformance to standards, those that are better than the previous phase are allowed to reproduce in the next phase. In evolution, that's called Mutation and Natural Selection.

Are you Kevin Langdon? — Wallows

No. Who dat?

Well, the question is pretty straightforward. If the universe is expanding, then new state spaces are arising and hence information.

I guess the question is whether the universe expands or contracts more rapidly in our universe as opposed to some other one? — Wallows

Carlo Rovelli says this about QM in relation to Information Theory, which I think is relevant:

“A physical system manifests itself only by interacting with another. The description of a physical system, then, is always given in relation to another physical system, the one with which it interacts. Any description of a system is therefore always a description of the information which a system has about another system, that is to say the correlation between the two systems.”

“1. The relevant information in any physical system is finite.
2. You can always obtain new information on a physical system.”

So the expansion/contraction of the universe is always relative to the position of observer/measurement apparatus. I think your question may be akin to ‘how long is a piece of string?’, but I could also be misunderstanding you.

The programmer defines the parameters for success, but not the final form. The program gradually evolves an optimized form to meet the designer's requirements. The heuristic trial & error path from start to finish is erratic, and similar to Hegel's Dialectic. It is deterministic in its teleological goal, but allows freedom to try novel forms, and then to test them for conformance to standards, those that are better than the previous phase are allowed to reproduce in the next phase. In evolution, that's called Mutation and Natural Selection. — Gnomon

No, this process is non-linear, and hence, at any moment the wavefunction may collapse and differentiate realities from (again) non-linear ones.

Or in other words, the best of all possible worlds would be a twig on the branch of the tree. The self-guided rational goal must include the possibility of wavefunction collapse and a static (best) wavefunction non-collapse.

(Intelligent design and the fact of simulated realities, overlap)

“A physical system manifests itself only by interacting with another. The description of a physical system, then, is always given in relation to another physical system, the one with which it interacts. Any description of a system is therefore always a description of the information which a system has about another system, that is to say the correlation between the two systems.” — Possibility

So, then are there just two branches needed in sum total of possible world's?

So, then are there just two branches needed in sum total of possible world's? — Wallows

No - technically, there are two possible branches for each relational distinction. It depends on the relative (non-spatial) ‘potential distance’ (in respect of R) between possible worlds: the degree to which the two worlds potentially differ with respect to R.

Most theories collapse the distinction between possible and potential by assuming that ALL possible worlds have sufficient potentiality to manifest in relation to our actual world, but it should be obvious that this isn’t accurate. Potentiality is the relative distinction between two possible worlds, while actuality is the relative distinction between two of these potentialities. So it’s a little more complicated...

No, this process is non-linear, and hence, at any moment the wavefunction may collapse and differentiate realities from (again) non-linear ones. — Wallows

You are talking about a sub-process, perhaps with feedback loops. I'm talking about the whole process, which has a beginning and end. I'm talking about a complete Program, not a sub-routine.

Or in other words, the best of all possible worlds would be a twig on the branch of the tree. — Wallows

Are you talking about multiverses? I prefer to discuss the only world we know. In Infinity & Eternity all things are possible, including : "collapse" and "non-collapse". But that negation gets us nowhere.

The self-guided rational goal must include the possibility of wavefunction collapse and a static (best) wavefunction non-collapse. — Wallows

I don't follow. :smile:

I don't follow. :smile: — Gnomon

Think of a solipsist arising within a simulated world.

If, then, what?

Think of a solipsist arising within a simulated world.
If, then, what? — Wallows

I don't know, What?
What does this have to do with my world?

I'm afraid the only solipsist I know anything about is me : imagining my own little world. The only other worlds I'm aware of are those in the minds of my fellow solipsists, whose realities seem to be approximate simulations of my personal reality. Are we creating our personal realities by observations of quantum fluctuations within the very worlds we are imagining? Does that mean 7 billion realities are being created by quantum collapse, every second of every day, around the world that I alone am dreaming?

Obviously, if we each create our private worlds, the infinite possibilities are mind boggling. That's why I prefer to assume that my reality is the only reality, and everyone else needs to get on board. They can do that by accepting the "facts" revealed by the imaginary scientists within my world as the sole truth.

Otherwise, we will have to just compare our subjective personal worldviews via philosophical dialogue, and construct a collective composite worldview (common sense) from the parts that are generally in agreement. That's what you might call "Conventional Reality". And no need to worry about collapsing quantums. It's all imaginary anyway. :cool:


The Case Against Reality : http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html

The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality, Quanta Magazine : https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality-20160421/

Well, the question is pretty straightforward. If the universe is expanding, then new state spaces are arising and hence information. — Wallows

An infinite universe expanded say 10% does not require more state spaces any more than a busload of new guests requires expansion of Hilbert's hotel.
Also, I have personal doubts about there being a specific state for any particular location, but there are interpretations of the universe that posit it, so I cannot say it is wrong.

Think of a solipsist arising within a simulated world. — Wallows

That's different. As the visible universe expands, it seems that matter exits it over time, leaving less to simulate. More space for a while, but eventually even that begins to collapse as the event horizon encroaches.

I'm afraid the only solipsist I know anything about is me : imagining my own little world. The only other worlds I'm aware of are those in the minds of my fellow solipsists, whose realities seem to be approximate simulations of my personal reality. Are we creating our personal realities by observations of quantum fluctuations within the very worlds we are imagining? Does that mean 7 billion realities are being created by quantum collapse, every second of every day, around the world that I alone am dreaming? — Gnomon

Well, that seems inconceivable if no consensus can be attained, and that seems even harder to assess than had 7 billion people living in their own worlds!

An infinite universe expanded say 10% does not require more state spaces any more than a busload of new guests requires expansion of Hilbert's hotel. — noAxioms

I think it more as an issue of countably infinite alphabets versus uncountably infinite alphabets as an analogy.

Well, that seems inconceivable if no consensus can be attained, and that seems even harder to assess than had 7 billion people living in their own worlds! — Wallows

I was just teasing you. Modern Science is the best consensus opinion of reality that humans have invented so far. But scientists are far from a quorum on fringe topics like Information Theory and Simulated Realities. I have expressed my informed opinion. And you have had your say. But neither of us has the last word. Science evolves. :smile:

PS__Some of us have too much time on our hands for discussing such abstruse topics as Simulated Realities and Imaginary Worlds. I'm retired. What's your excuse? :cool:

I was just teasing you. Modern Science is the best consensus opinion of reality that humans have invented so far. But scientists are far from a quorum on fringe topics like Information Theory and Simulated Realities. I have expressed my informed opinion. And you have had your say. But neither of us has the last word. Science evolves. :smile: — Gnomon

But, think about this... can a solipsist recreate the world in a more perfect form? This verges on my other topic about intelligent design and solipsism...

But, think about this... can a solipsist recreate the world in a more perfect form? This verges on my other topic about intelligent design and solipsism... — Wallows

PS__Some of us have too much time on our hands for discussing such abstruse topics as Simulated Realities and Imaginary Worlds. I'm retired. What's your excuse? :cool: — Gnomon

Over & out.

You read that PDF I sent you?

It seems to point towards panpsychism.

An infinite universe expanded say 10% does not require more state spaces any more than a busload of new guests requires expansion of Hilbert's hotel.
— noAxioms

I think it more as an issue of countably infinite alphabets versus uncountably infinite alphabets as an analogy. — Wallows

It goes from countable to uncountable when growing 10%?
If not, what do you mean by that reply?

The universe is not the sort of thing that can be run on any computer as we know them, even given infinite resources. Approximated, sure, but even then only a subset of it. So the thing doing the simulating is not anything to which we can really relate.

As for being a deterministic universe, that all depends on your quantum interpretation of choice, but most of them are actually pretty deterministic with no fundamental randomness.

It goes from countable to uncountable when growing 10%?
If not, what do you mean by that reply? — noAxioms

I meant that it is either uncountably infinite or continuously expanding.

Continuously expanding or not, I can conceivably count the electrons in it, so it seems countably infinite, no?

As for the solipsist thing to which you seem to be leaning, the universe need not be simulated at all, only your experience of it, which is within the capability of the sort of machine we can envision.

Continuously expanding or not, I can count the electrons in it, so it seems countably infinite, no? — noAxioms

Are you also considering the multitude of multiverses also? Yeah, I know, uncountable or countable? Seems to me that determinism is inescapable either way.

As for the solipsist thing to which you seem to be leaning, the universe need not be simulated at all, only your experience of it, which is within the capability of the sort of machine we can envision. — noAxioms

No, not really. Any solipsistic universe can be (potentially) uncountably infinite, as per the pre-existing universe from where the solipsist derives their solipsism.