flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > sleepsleep's vitally important things

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 99, 100, 101 ... 245, 246, 247  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
Furs wrote:
why only certain laws can create other bubbles
Stability is the keyword, I guess. Just like soap bubbles, the quantum bubbles are not sustainable if their fundamental constants and physical laws are not "consistent" in a certain sense.

Furs wrote:
what happens with "dead ends", bubbles which have laws that can't create other bubbles?
Time never stands still for matter/antimatter. Eventually, the bubbles will "burst" (or somehow disintegrate) and energy will be released. And the cycle will start all over again.

Wink
Post 05 Aug 2017, 04:17
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 1471
Furs
But time is a property of the spacetime bubble itself. There is no such thing as time outside of spacetime. But I mean the bubbles (referred in the video) get created through quantum processes from this spacetime. The question is, if they need an already established bubble with "proper physics" to be able to create others, what made the physics for the first bubble? (not asking what made the first bubble, no, but what made the laws it follows) Confused
Post 05 Aug 2017, 10:56
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
Furs wrote:
what made the physics for the first bubble? (not asking what made the first bubble, no, but what made the laws it follows) Confused
That's why I don't like the idea of having a first bubble or spacetime. The fundamental constants and physical laws associated with the first bubble must be somewhat "special"; otherwise, it may not be able to spawn other bubbles.

In my idea, the inherent instability gives rise to bubbles that bear truly-random fundamental constants and physical laws. Thus, the vast majority of the bubbles probably just burst right away because the fundamental constants and physical laws do not make any sense. Yet, a tiny fraction of the bubbles are sustainable because their physics is, at least, consistent. So, it is kind of like "natural selection" -- bubbles with "workable" physics survive.

Wink
Post 05 Aug 2017, 12:59
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 1471
Furs
Well I didn't mean it as "absolute first", but rather first amongst all these bubbles. (who knows how deep the rabbit hole goes beyond that)

Inherent instability follows laws by itself, though, so then the question just gets shifted to it instead Confused
Post 05 Aug 2017, 13:57
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
Furs wrote:
Inherent instability follows laws by itself, though, so then the question just gets shifted to it instead Confused
Nope. the inherent instability is a truly-random "thing" that is not based on any deterministic laws.

Wink
Post 05 Aug 2017, 14:05
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 1471
Furs
I guess I can't really argue with that, if that's what you believe. Personally I don't even believe in true randomness, at some point I think everything is just pseudo-random based on an algorithm outside the bounds of the Universe.
Post 05 Aug 2017, 14:08
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8903
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
Furs wrote:

Personally I don't even believe in true randomness, at some point I think everything is just pseudo-random based on an algorithm outside the bounds of the Universe.

you mean, if i giving you a choice to choose a number from 0 to 999,
the number you gonna reply is pseudo-random too?
Post 05 Aug 2017, 18:01
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8903
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
6th August 2017

- i pondering about data and parser,

- data, 1 and 0 and continuous stream of 1 and 0, (the most raw basic form of everything)

- assume, random 1 or 0 will be added into stream, does eventually a parser of 1 and 0 will get built?

- i am having issue with evolution with only 1 and 0,
Post 05 Aug 2017, 18:13
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 1471
Furs
sleepsleep wrote:
you mean, if i giving you a choice to choose a number from 0 to 999,
the number you gonna reply is pseudo-random too?
Yeah. If I'm part of the system.

What I mean with that is, to put it simply, whether I'm a "player" of this simulation or just an entity living inside of it.

Think of the Matrix. If I'm a player (a guy inside the virtual reality, but my actual mind is outside of it), then it's not pseudo-random within this Universe but "free will" (that doesn't mean it's not pseudo-random in the Universe outside of this one, which it could be).

However, if I'm a NPC (like most humans in the Matrix which exist only within the Matrix and aren't humans outside of it, but creations of the Matrix), then yeah I have no free will and what I'm thinking is just the result of pseudo-random processes and chemical reactions etc which are the effect of computations.

I'm agnostic to the whole free will thing. I don't believe in it faithfully, but I don't dismiss it either, since both could be possible (without invoking any religion)
Post 05 Aug 2017, 18:18
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
Furs wrote:
Personally I don't even believe in true randomness
Because you believe that there MUST be an eternal, omnipotent creator who lays down a certain set of laws for the universe (or, in general, the existence of things).

I, on the other hand, do not buy such an idea. The reason is what you said in the AI thread -- we are not special.

We are not special. Our solar system is not special. Our galaxy, the Milky Way, is not special. Even our observable universe is not special. The entire universe should not be that special, either.

Following the same line of logic, I would ask:

What makes you think that creation, in itself, must be so special? Specifically, how come there must be a certain set of deterministic laws behind creation?

Shouldn't my "natural selection" theory -- only bubbles with "workable" physics survive -- make more sense?

To me, any idea that involves the eternal existence of anything special does not make sense. Note that "eternal existence" means "existence with no beginning and no end".

Wink


Last edited by YONG on 06 Aug 2017, 13:02; edited 2 times in total
Post 06 Aug 2017, 02:51
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8903
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
so how to find ways to determine if we have choice or whatever we choose is pre-determined ?
Post 06 Aug 2017, 02:54
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
sleepsleep wrote:
- i am having issue with evolution with only 1 and 0,
Get some sleep and your issue will be automatically resolved. Trust me.

Wink
Post 06 Aug 2017, 02:55
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
sleepsleep wrote:
so how to find ways to determine if we have choice or whatever we choose is pre-determined ?
Watch the following sci-fi movie and you will have the answer:

Predestination (2014)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2397535/

Wink
Post 06 Aug 2017, 03:02
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 1471
Furs
YONG wrote:
What makes you think that creation, in itself, must be so special? Specifically, how come there must be a certain set of deterministic laws behind creation?
Because we'll be able to create worlds ourselves in the near future. The probability that we are the "first" to do so (i.e. we weren't created ourselves) is infinitesimal. Lately, I've come to understand a variant of this is called the Ancestor Simulation. Wink

YONG wrote:
Shouldn't my "natural selection" theory -- only bubbles with "workable" physics survive -- make more sense?

To me, any idea that involves the eternal existence of anything special does not make sense.
But eternity is a fact, because at some point the bubble we exist in did not exist. And the bubble itself contains time.

It doesn't make sense to you because you somehow think that time is an absolute thing and not a local stuff that was "created" just like space was (via random processes in your view). In fact, it is completely linked to space to begin with.

We don't have words to describe stuff "outside of time" properly, just like we can't really visualize 4D space -- but "eternal" sounds like a pretty good fit to me. So, relative to our "time", that being is indeed "eternal". Of course this doesn't say anything that it, by itself, was not created as well, but that's going way ahead of ourselves now. Wink
Post 06 Aug 2017, 10:57
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17279
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
The way that these arguments are progressing suggests to me that the only "true" answer here is agnosticism. That is; both theism and atheism cannot be definitely correct since we simply don't know, and perhaps cannot ever know, such things as who or what was the cause of the original creation event or thing (or whatever words we are supposed to use to describe the "beginning", or even if there was a beginning at all).

Many of the "facts" I see discussed here are really just theories based upon observations, and not proven incontrovertible certainties.
Post 06 Aug 2017, 11:15
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 1471
Furs
Well eternity is a fact though, at least relative to what we understand as "time". It doesn't mean we were created by a conscious entity, but it does mean stuff outside of this spacetime is "eternal", even if it's something mundane. And we know that the Big Bang was what created this spacetime, more or less.
Post 06 Aug 2017, 11:24
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
Furs wrote:
It doesn't make sense to you because you somehow think that time is an absolute thing and not a local stuff that was "created" just like space was (via random processes in your view). In fact, it is completely linked to space to begin with.
When I use the word "eternal" to describe the pre-creation void, I mean that it has no beginning and no end. I do not mean that time somehow applies to it.

In fact, I have repeatedly emphasized that there is absolutely nothing but inherent instability (which is some form of random energy fluctuation). So, it goes without saying that time does not apply to the void.

Wink
Post 06 Aug 2017, 12:38
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
revolution wrote:
The way that these arguments are progressing suggests to me that the only "true" answer here is agnosticism.
I pointed out this implication quite some time ago. Most of the arguments here are theoretical or purely imaginary. We just try to see whether or not our theories on the "creation" thing make sense, based on our current understanding of physics.

Wink
Post 06 Aug 2017, 12:45
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
Furs wrote:
Because we'll be able to create worlds ourselves in the near future. The probability that we are the "first" to do so (i.e. we weren't created ourselves) is infinitesimal. Lately, I've come to understand a variant of this is called the Ancestor Simulation. Wink
We have been creating such simulations for a very long time. Haven't you watched the following movie?

The Thirteenth Floor (1999)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0139809/

BTW, I like this movie a lot.

Wink
Post 06 Aug 2017, 12:50
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 1471
Furs
YONG wrote:
When I use the word "eternal" to describe the pre-creation void, I mean that it has no beginning and no end. I do not mean that time somehow applies to it.

In fact, I have repeatedly emphasized that there is absolutely nothing but inherent instability (which is some form of random energy fluctuation). So, it goes without saying that time does not apply to the void.
There's no such thing as beginning or end without time though. You know, what I'm basically saying is that it is incomprehensible to imagine or describe in words. We can calculate extra dimensions and a world with no time at all (i.e. eternal world), but it is impossible to imagine more than 3 dimensions, same with time.

In your case the instability would be "eternal" since it doesn't have time, so I don't see why you think an eternal creator (instead of random instability) is any different.
Post 06 Aug 2017, 12:54
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 99, 100, 101 ... 245, 246, 247  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.