Esox. (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} ciranox) wrote in alexanderwait, |
Re: Dimensionality and universality
Yes, if you solve the question of predicting lifeforms in the quantum coreworld, which is by the way a very great idea -- the notion of core organisms on a 1D turing machine is the most basic way to represent the idea of darwinian evolution of organisms in a nonstochastic algorithmic-state-machine framework -- if you solve the question of prediction, then you've also solved the question of complexity in general, and you may go and collect your nobel prize!
Comparing a classical versus a quantum coreworld gives rise to the -- perhaps impossible -- question, is it possible that our universe is in fact a quantum turing machine?
Where does quantum randomness arise from? It seems that at the fundamental level the universe might be equivalent to a turing machine with a perfectly-random number generator built into its instruction set. It is impossible to predict when a particle decay will occur...this is indicative that at a very fundamental level, the universe is constructed upon a background of randomness.
If you put a bucket of ball bearings on a paint-shaker, the otherwise disordered movements of the bearings will give rise to wave-like entities on the surface, they appear like gaussian spikes, and they move around and interact. Perhaps the universe is like this.
The notion of a quantum coreworld is intruiging because as I see it, this is a bridge between two realms that we cannot reconcile right now. On the one hand, the only coreworlds we have available to us right now are classical deterministic algorithmic state machines. We can create darwinian evolution in them, but they are a different realm than the reality upon which we have evolved, in that our reality at a fundamental level has randomness built-into it and therefore cannot be simulated on a classical algorithmic state machine.
On the other hand, someday we will have true quantum computers. If you create a quantum computer and then create a coreworld on this computer you've got it! It will be a grand experiment in emergence! If you begin with the correct ruleset for the turing machine, you will probably get entities that ca be classified as 'organisms' but which, from the proper viewpoint, are an analog of particles, atoms and other building blocks for instance! It is conceivable that a coreworld on a quantum turing machine running the correct set of instructions will give rise to a universe identical to ours.
Protons are merely turing-organisms, a stable population in memory.
Yes, if you solve the question of predicting lifeforms in the quantum coreworld, which is by the way a very great idea -- the notion of core organisms on a 1D turing machine is the most basic way to represent the idea of darwinian evolution of organisms in a nonstochastic algorithmic-state-machine framework -- if you solve the question of prediction, then you've also solved the question of complexity in general, and you may go and collect your nobel prize!
Comparing a classical versus a quantum coreworld gives rise to the -- perhaps impossible -- question, is it possible that our universe is in fact a quantum turing machine?
Where does quantum randomness arise from? It seems that at the fundamental level the universe might be equivalent to a turing machine with a perfectly-random number generator built into its instruction set. It is impossible to predict when a particle decay will occur...this is indicative that at a very fundamental level, the universe is constructed upon a background of randomness.
If you put a bucket of ball bearings on a paint-shaker, the otherwise disordered movements of the bearings will give rise to wave-like entities on the surface, they appear like gaussian spikes, and they move around and interact. Perhaps the universe is like this.
The notion of a quantum coreworld is intruiging because as I see it, this is a bridge between two realms that we cannot reconcile right now. On the one hand, the only coreworlds we have available to us right now are classical deterministic algorithmic state machines. We can create darwinian evolution in them, but they are a different realm than the reality upon which we have evolved, in that our reality at a fundamental level has randomness built-into it and therefore cannot be simulated on a classical algorithmic state machine.
On the other hand, someday we will have true quantum computers. If you create a quantum computer and then create a coreworld on this computer you've got it! It will be a grand experiment in emergence! If you begin with the correct ruleset for the turing machine, you will probably get entities that ca be classified as 'organisms' but which, from the proper viewpoint, are an analog of particles, atoms and other building blocks for instance! It is conceivable that a coreworld on a quantum turing machine running the correct set of instructions will give rise to a universe identical to ours.
Protons are merely turing-organisms, a stable population in memory.
