Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jan Haugland · 11-25-2002, 03:41 PM

I just read an article in Wired magazine called <a href="http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.12/holytech.html" target="_blank">God is the Machine</a>.

The basic premise is that the a number of scientists believe that not only does the universe function like a massive computer, is is really a massive computer. The physical world is really information, 1s and 0s.

My first impression is that this is an example of a metaphor taken too far. My knowledge about both information theory and physics is rather limited, so I'd like some comments on this.

Can the universe really be a turing machine?

(I was a bit unsure what was the right place for this message, so I'm sorry if I placed it in the wrong forum.)

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: Jan Haugland ]

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: Jan Haugland ]

excreationist · 11-25-2002, 04:12 PM

That article talked a bit about David Deutsch.

In <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/quantum/quantum.jsp?id=22994400" target="_blank">a New Scientist article</a>, it said:

Quote:

He treats the multiverse as if it were a quantum computer. Quantum computers exploit the strangeness of quantum systems-their ability to be in many states at once-to do certain kinds of calculation at ludicrously high speed.
...
"One day, a quantum computer will be built which does more simultaneous calculations than there are particles in the Universe," says Deutsch. "Since the Universe as we see it lacks the computational resources to do the calculations, where are they being done?" It can only be in other universes, he says. "Quantum computers share information with huge numbers of versions of themselves throughout the multiverse."

Imagine that you have a quantum PC and you set it a problem. What happens is that a huge number of versions of your PC split off from this Universe into their own separate, local universes, and work on parallel strands of the problem. A split second later, the pocket universes recombine into one, and those strands are pulled together to provide the answer that pops up on your screen. "Quantum computers are the first machines humans have ever built to exploit the multiverse directly," says Deutsch.

At the moment, even the biggest quantum computers can only work their magic on about 6 bits of information, which in Deutsch's view means they exploit copies of themselves in 26 universes-that's just 64 of them. Because the computational feats of such computers are puny, people can choose to ignore the multiverse. "But something will happen when the number of parallel calculations becomes very large," says Deutsch. "If the number is 64, people can shut their eyes but if it's 10^64, they will no longer be able to pretend."

<a href="http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/quantum/parallel.jsp" target="_blank">Another New Scientist article about David Deutsch</a>

I think he's saying that there are parallel histories of the universe and the matching particles interact in a way that can be used to compute things ("quantum computer" style interactions).

I guess this kind of parallel computing could be emulated on a sequential computer, in the same way that single processors can simulate parallel processors by having the different processes/programs take turns (Windows does this - you can print and type at more or less the same time, etc).

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: excreationist ]

beoba · 11-25-2002, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jan Haugland:
My first impression is that this is an example of a metaphor taken too far.

Same.

fando · 11-25-2002, 08:45 PM

Ah, this is related to Wolfram's A New Kind of Science. I think that the article is pressing the metaphor "information is reality" a little too hard. That we're attacking the metaphor itself is telling. The first thing to realize before jumping to conclusions is what is meant by computation. We are not talking about a machine that takes data from some cosmic tape, then computes a result for the next step in time. Accroding to Wolfram, there is no distinction between machine and data. We are talking about a self-contained system which itself has the fundamental behavior of a turing machine. The data is the machine, the machine is the data. The data evolves by interacting with itself ... that's computation. The only special consideration is the rule or set of rules fundamental to our universe that governs the computation itself. Wolfram writes that there is one grand rule that tells the data what the result is of computing on itself. He is looking for that rule and hopes that others will join the search.

I don't think I summarized it sufficiently to ease the intuitional displeasure of the metaphor pressed by this article. Judge for yourself by reading what Wolfram has to say and what others say of his work. There is a lot of material to cover before one can begin to understand what is being said.

Argh, I don't have time to elaborate or dredge up the relevant material on this interweb place. I hope others will do it for me.

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: fando ]

Jan Haugland · 11-26-2002, 05:55 PM

Thanks for feedback, folks. I wrote <a href="http://blogs.salon.com/0001561/2002/11/27.html#a453" target="_blank">a little piece commenting on the Wired article</a>, in particular the "a program needs a programmer" part which of course is the watchmaker argument recycled.

11-25-2002, 03:41 PM	#1
Jan Haugland Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Bergen, Norway Posts: 70	Everything is Information? Wired article I just read an article in Wired magazine called <a href="http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.12/holytech.html" target="_blank">God is the Machine</a>. The basic premise is that the a number of scientists believe that not only does the universe function like a massive computer, is is really a massive computer. The physical world is really information, 1s and 0s. My first impression is that this is an example of a metaphor taken too far. My knowledge about both information theory and physics is rather limited, so I'd like some comments on this. Can the universe really be a turing machine? (I was a bit unsure what was the right place for this message, so I'm sorry if I placed it in the wrong forum.) [ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: Jan Haugland ] [ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: Jan Haugland ]</p>

11-25-2002, 08:45 PM	#4
fando Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Los Angeles Area Posts: 1,372	Ah, this is related to Wolfram's A New Kind of Science. I think that the article is pressing the metaphor "information is reality" a little too hard. That we're attacking the metaphor itself is telling. The first thing to realize before jumping to conclusions is what is meant by computation. We are not talking about a machine that takes data from some cosmic tape, then computes a result for the next step in time. Accroding to Wolfram, there is no distinction between machine and data. We are talking about a self-contained system which itself has the fundamental behavior of a turing machine. The data is the machine, the machine is the data. The data evolves by interacting with itself ... that's computation. The only special consideration is the rule or set of rules fundamental to our universe that governs the computation itself. Wolfram writes that there is one grand rule that tells the data what the result is of computing on itself. He is looking for that rule and hopes that others will join the search. I don't think I summarized it sufficiently to ease the intuitional displeasure of the metaphor pressed by this article. Judge for yourself by reading what Wolfram has to say and what others say of his work. There is a lot of material to cover before one can begin to understand what is being said. Argh, I don't have time to elaborate or dredge up the relevant material on this interweb place. I hope others will do it for me. [ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: fando ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-26-2002, 05:55 PM	#5
Jan Haugland Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Bergen, Norway Posts: 70	Thanks for feedback, folks. I wrote <a href="http://blogs.salon.com/0001561/2002/11/27.html#a453" target="_blank">a little piece commenting on the Wired article</a>, in particular the "a program needs a programmer" part which of course is the watchmaker argument recycled.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.