Kolmogorov needs to be remembered, pleased he's mentioned here. If only some others (Wolfram) would talk about those that have gone before instead of their own ego.
In this conversation, Mr. Lloyd has mixed the concept of randomness and determinism. I want to ask viewers to consider if that is ever permissible as part of an explanation. We have to consider that "random", as humans concieve it, means nothing more than "I (we) cant find a pattern in it". Humans have made random generators, but all of them use deterministic procedures to make what we think of as random, and so are actually called "psuedo-random" or "effectively random". Even when the source of the generator is the decay of a radio-active substance we are still falling back upon our inability to see a pattern in it. For any given purpose, a generator can be made/purchased which is effectively random for the purpose at hand. For some purposes the effective randomness that suffices may be less than that of the best pseudo-random generator. And in the case of decay of a radio-active substance, though we are unable to explain the varying time intervals between the blips, do we really think the variation does not have a deterministic explanation? So I say introducing "randomness" into an explanation, as a critical part of the explanation, is a bit dishonest, or at least myopic. If one has to introduce randomness to make a point, then I say fairy dust has been sprinkled into the mix. I bring Immanuel Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" into this discussion. Kant's point was to subject Reason itself to critique, asking whether or not it had a solid foundation. He did not declare the matter one way or the other, but for myself and many raised a very skeptical feeling. Kant did a pretty good job of explaining how what we call Reason is based on how perceptions of the world end up being pictured in our minds, after passing through many layers of filters. To summarize briefly and grossly, Kant was suspicious that our minds might be so conditioned and limited that we simply do not see all that is going on. What we do see fits with what we can see, what we can think. So from what we can think we derive rules to explain just that. So we think deterministicly. What doesn't fit that way of thinking is confusing. And there are other confusions....we can't imagine space without time, or time without space. But then we think maybe time is a human construct. But trying to take time out of every thing measured does not seem to help. We can make progress even if we have small or rather larger blindspots that will never be overcome. That is obvious. I think it more straight up honest to say, whenever "random" is introduced, that it is being introduced to glue together pieces of deterministic thinking, and the use of such glue suggests some other stuff that we don't see and can't comprehend, and may never comprehend.
Hi! with regards to radioactive decay, I respond that just because no human can find a pattern in it that renders it predictable does not mean it is "truly random". In fact, there is no way for a human to determine any event as "truly random".
That's interesting. Although I don't know if you could say it's not 'permissible' as part of an explanation, as long as we're open to the idea that what we call random _may_ not really mean truly random then I don't see why we couldn't use it as a label in this case, precisely _because_ we might not fully understand it. It would also be erroneous to claim it is actually determinism when at the time being, we don't know. But complex systems, nonetheless, have both random and deterministic characteristics (from what we currently perceive as random and deterministic, that is kind of the point of language, it is limited to the perception of those who come up with it). Maybe they're 2 sides of the same coin. That has yet to be determined (pun not intended).
We know exactly what randomness is, it's the simultaneous output of a unified matrix. This is proven beyond proof via QM & Bell's theorem, and the entirety of Seth Lloyds and the rest are a vanishing breed of disinformation shills.
xxxYYZxxx I think the breed is flourishing. Even Captain Kirk would roll his eyes at today's theoretical physicists, especially at those holding forth on biological evolution; triffids and what not. I must mention in parting, I AM impressed with the precision of cosmologists' dating of the big bang. 13.76 billion years ago, was it? Adding a few more decimal places instead of round numbers suggests greater precision than what actually exists. Old trick. Don't they require Stats for physicists anymore? I have noted that the age of the universe has increased billions of years just in my lifetime. One of the few things aging faster than I. Some graduate student should look into this, wouldn't you say?
Are you saying that in your imagination you cannot imagine a place that is completely static and void of time? Utter bullshit. You can imagine crazier things than that, mind is incredibly fluid relative to our worlds rigidity. I just love contemplating thay we can project ourselves in so many impossible and fantastical worlds and into the future and the past, but yeah you have a point, there must be some kind of limit we just dont know it, same goes for memory.
Quantum world is random. Randomness can lead to chaos (see Lorenz), randomness can also lead to complexity (see Conway). Anthropic principle means we live in the latter, with enough complexity for life. None of this explains why we exist, although it also doesn't explain why we don't exist.
Just the computational part, ..because it's another version of time-timing. If the concept of relative-quantized, differentiated history in a universal wave is reasonable, then it's quantum information in process that's the program of cause-effect composing "eventual" structures.
I suppose when you work on computation at MIT everything seems like a computer. 7:30 Is a thermostat really a computer? I don't mean the new digital ones but the old fashioned ones that used a spring and a vile of mercury. Heat expands the springs titling the vile and the mercury flows away from the contacts turning off the heat. The spring then contracts, the vile tilts back and the mercury closes the contacts turning on the heat. Is that a computer? I suppose the whether the mercury makes contact (1) or not (0) as the bit but where is the program, the instruction set? 10:30 How short is that program? How many bytes would it take to create a computer that could create all possible programs and evaluate them? Lets say 50 bytes, that 400 bits. The probability of generating such a program at random would be ~ 10 to the power of -120. As a comparison the universe is about 10 to the 18th seconds old. So maybe not all that likely.
Bit late but to answer your question... its likely that the shortest program and the computation necessary to create a universal computer is actually close to nothing. Here's an example. You have a 0 and 1 to work with...and when put in groups of 3, you create the following sets of information 000 = A 001 = B 010 = C 100 = D 101 = E 011 = F 110 = G 111 = H So with this original computer of just 3 pieces of information, i created a new axiom system (A-H) which i can now create with that, an even larger axiom system in the following manner: AAA = Molecule 1 AAB = Molecule 2 AAC = Molecule 3... All the way to... HHH = Molecule 512 And guess what...you can do it again, with an even larger axiom system (Molecule 1)(Molecule 1)(Molecule 1) = Chemical 1 (Molecule 1)(Molecule 1)(Molecule 2) = Chemical 2 (Molecule 1)(Molecule 1)(Molecule 3) = Chemical 3... All the way to... (Molecule 512)(Molecule 512)(Molecule 512) = Chemical 135,000,000 And...guess what...you can do it again, and the complexity explodes into so many possible configurations that it's effectively infinite. But what is amazing about this, is that i can for example, describe Chemical 3 in just 27 binary units of information : 000000000-000000000-000000010 (which is AAA-AAA-AAC in molecule notation, which is Molecule1-Molecule1-Molecule3 in Chemical Notation.) This is the complexity from simplicity in computation that Seth Lloyd is referring to... and the above example is using orders of 3 binary units...but it can be done with just 2 to start with meaning that all you need to create Turing Complete Computation, is a system that is capable of evaluating binary relationships...discovered by a mathematician named Moses Schönfinkel in the 1920's called SK Combinators Calculus. So the answer to your question of how many bytes would it take to create a computer that can simulate all other programs? The answer is 2...the most simplest of computers...with only 2 bites of information: 0 or 1. The other question is how many things can hold that information. If you have a system that is capable of producing 135 million different configurations, then you only need 27 bits of information to go through every configuration that computer can make. So if the universe has 10^400 things that can hold a bit of information, then it has a finite...but near infinite amount of computational power, and near infinite computational complexity. Beyond the mind-blowing-ness of the above, it also helps to realize that, the only requisite to making a Turing complete computer is the capacity to hold a bit of information (0 or 1), thus every thing that you add to your computer, is capable itself of doing Turing complete computation...so all things are Turing machines and thus turing computation is equivalent to each other in this way, and can simulate one another...and that's what nature is at a fundamental level...just a Turing machine, simulating more Turing machines...each additional thing that you add capable of holding information explodes the amount of possible complexity you can have, and that's where the complexity comes from something so simple.
@@NightmareCourtPictures It's true, data can be chunked into chunks of 1 to n bits. And that simple regularities can lead to complexity. But what is a computer? and what is not a computer? If everything is a computer do we even need the concept of "computer" since it's a given?
@BlueBoy 1 You might be right, there is a good chance you are right. Watch the video again and mentally replace "computer program" with laws of physics and his bold claim becomes: the universe behaves according to the laws of physics.
Quantum information, Quantum entanglement, Are, fundamental, underlying of Reality. Quantum Mind emerge, Quantum Body emerge. Mind and Body entanglement.. Consciousness emerge. Spacetime emerge, Mathematics Emerge, Holographic principal.
Alien tech or processes gravity at the smallest level with no power the molecular level amazing! Crank up the LHC to find dark matter, dark energy, and gravitons. This is taking the universe broken down all the forces to the smallest level until it developed to full forces!
there are a couple of aspects that would have made even more interesting this interview: i get that if it weren't for the "injection" of randomness from the quantum level, than information would be an insignificant concept - because for every state in the whole history of the universe you would just need the initial condition (big bang) and time t; just one set of information, complete determinism, absolutely no surprise. but than again QM, by bohemian mechanics and other interpretations, says that the quantum world isn't random! there are just hidden variables that stop us from connecting to the nondeterministic nature of it. also general relativity, a highly tested and successful theory, says that there is an already existing, whole block of space-time, from the big bang to the ends of time. and passing of time is due to our conscience that has the ability to only inhabit one slice at a time; the very same way the light of the projector "brings to life" only one frame at a time, but the whole role of film is already there from the beginning! anybody has a link or something that can illuminate these aspects?
Trevor Martin our world is deffinetly random in respect to our best theories; so "nature doesn't want to show it's nature" as nagarjuna said. BUT we don't have free will - no matter what scientists (that work in OTHER areas than COGNITIVISM) tell us. "not being able to predict behaviour" is the smallest part in a great set of traits that define "free will" (the most important being - having a self, having the ability to define who you are "to be your own maker", taking decisions from within the conscious self and not just rising from unconscious processes, which they do). you CAN'T say that you are the protons in your head and still seriously posit free will :))) to understand the error: are you familiar with micro biome science? if not you will be amazed to read that our gut BACTERIA influence our BEHAVIOUR! what you have said about protons is JUST LIKE me saying "THE BACTERIA IN MY INTESTINES ARE PART OF MY SOUL AND THEY TAKE PART IN MY DECISIONS... AND I HAVE FREE WILL" that is ridiculous. the ONLY thing you prove is that you have NO control over your behaviour because it's just PHYSICS of the underlying nervous tissue (following strict rules just like the physics of an avalanche). my sincere opinion is that before we dive to the bottom of things... free will is NOT possible at the macro, classical level. consciousness may be (who knows?) some metaphysical substance, but the mind inhabited by that consciousness definitely acts by classical rules of determinacy. there's a definite correlation between brain states and mind states, seen through ENDLESS MEDICAL EXPERIENCES (on open brain surgery when the neurosurgeon stimulated the laughing area the (conscious) patient began to laugh; when stimulated in the sweet taste area the patient said he has a pleasurable feeling just as if he was eating desert). so, at least, MIND behaves in synchronicity with the underlying physical events of the physical brain! and the brain is a macro system that evolved in a macro environment, with evolutionary pressures to react to classical interactions in that environment, as faithfully as possible! < if i push a ten meter rod by one end, i don't need to watch every quantum aspect of it's inner structure to know that the other end would move in accordance. classical logic! > THE BRAIN IS A MACHINE SPECIALISED IN ELIMINATING RANDOMNESS from it's behaviour, because in the course of evolution, billions of organisms (from the first nervous system) in their countless interactions with a classical environment, the brains that didn't interpret things in the deterministic logic were NOT FIT to pass their genes. so the brain-mind, both(!) act and react in the classical logic of things (attention, this doesn't mean we are logical in reasoning. because we live in a very complex society, with contrasting rules, expectations, biases, feelings, traumas, etc).for example: i'm the clone of my father, it's incredible how we look alike, cough alike, we sneeze alike (always twice), sleep alike, we have similar traits of character... but we think so fucking different! the former, i think are traits that have to do in considerable amount to genes, and the latter has to do with the environment. my brain and his, were programmed by different environments, and as i sed above, brains are machines that grow faithful to their environments! i'm just what the environment did to me, and what's done, stays securely done in a way that only another classical interaction could possibly change my behaviour. free will is clearly an illusion. and anyone who tries to imply that "those classical events that made 'me' are influenced in their turn by my mind in a quantum way" is getting nowhere fast, because if i influence my environment, i do it "unconsciously" "without my realisation"... where's free will in that? the 'unconscious way' our mind works is tested and proved endlessly in clinical environments! the way in which we make decisions is ABSOLUTELY incongruent with free will. some clinical tests, using fMRI, showed that the parts of the brain involved in some decision making, light up with as much as 10 SECONDS BEFORE (!) the patient "decided" (or he had the illusion he decides) and communicated to the researchers "i'm deciding". i myself, think of me right now, just following nature's course... writing these lines. i'm not "deciding" with my free will. people, when they hear that, go to the extreme and ask me what's stopping me killing someone :)) ...simple: i can represent my reasons for actions, and their consequences. nature didn't gave me reasons to kill; but it gave me fear from prison, and value for other's life.
Trevor Martin do you realise how poor your judgement is? i've given you clear premises and argumentation. you bypass all that and still say something that seems so child like "random therefore free will". there are computers that make decisions using random number generators (as random as it can be); BY YOUR REASONING THEY HAVE FREE WILL! there were experiments done where subjects were placed in fMRI machines, and told to indicate to the research team when they make a decision. the researchers have clearly seen time and time again, that activity in the brain areas responsible for particular decisions fire up with as much as 10 seconds(!) BEFORE the moment where the subject feels that it's deciding :))) "you" are the slave of the unconscious and a huge domino of chemical pathways in your body (that you don't control!). (there is clear research that shows that the gut microbiome profile determines your behaviour! are you a fucking microbiome wizard ? do you control that which controls you ?:))) furthermore you are the slave of your environment that you don't control: a baby born in a gypsy family that is adopted by a wealthy western family will grow to believe that everything he does is his "doing"! BUT if he stayed with the gypsies would have believed the same WHYLE DOING TOTALY DIFFERENT THINGS! this is proof that man is a puppet when he acts but he becomes a poet when he describes his actions :))) at this macro-scale we are living at, all interactions respect the laws of "matter"! and i repeat, our brains are part of this "matter" world, with these types of interactions; they are highly evolved machines to compute classic information and classic logic! and they are made out of QM JUST AS my macbook is made QM but they both FILTER OUT FLUCTUATIONS AND RANDOMNESS from their respective operations! otherwise i would be a mumbo-jumbo of thoughts and behaviour!!! altho i can't say that about you :)) OTHERWISE, disciplines as neuroscience, cognitive science, logic, neurology, etc etc would be out the window! doctors when they operate on brains KNOW what that piece of gray matter does; they know how those circuits operate and what they do! and there's clearly tremendous evolution in "knowing how brains generate minds". probably in 50 years will know all about the circuits who "do" the thinking. it clearly depends on trustworthy, non-random, classical logically operating circuits! otherwise all that billions $ research done in the last +100 years would would mean to be nonsensical! why study how the brain works if it doesn't depend on the brain how you behave !? :)) if i play with your neurotransmitters i can make you fly with angel puppies, or kill a stranger on the street, or make you remain absolutely inert! BECAUSE FREE WILL RESIDES ABSOLUTELY, AND WITHOUT QUESTION IN THE PHYSICAL BRAIN! neurotransmitters don't entangle! furthermore, you must surely understand that either humans, or future AI's, or some other alien life, will eventually spread to occupy and transform enormous volumes of space; that would mean that all the laws of physics would be violated by a new force or/and energy, that would come to offset and rule everything! :)) it's impossible to play with the energy content of the universe and violate the second law of TD; never in trillions of particle interactions did we see other possible forces (free will)! RANDOMNESS = FREE WILL is the stupidest thing of stupid reasoning. the only way for free will to be possible is that a magic hidden fairy dust force to exist somehow. for us to satisfy our cultural indoctrination, our well fed Ego's, an posit free will and sprinkle lots of magic on our inner "Beyonce" we must bend all scientific evidence, all working instruments, all particle mathematic descriptions, all cosmological observations, etc. all for the stupidest thing in this universe - the Ego :)) what are you gonna reply? let me guess... a link with randomness :)))
Trevor Martin :)))) you don't have an iota of understanding, nor any sense in what you are saying. "this means that our mental intentions have control over a phenomenon..." IT'S THE OTHER WAY AROUND! :)))) fuck it... let's leave it at that
Trevor Martin :))) you're so further from the truth as can be. i'm not saying that because "i know". i do not know shit, but i read the aspects of free will, consciousness and self, from the main scientific effort. i make an effort to understand, to think logically, EVEN THO what i read and rationally "get"... is that i do not have ownership of my self. people only understand and "get" what flatters their "self". you pointlessly "immerse yourself" in all that quantum stuff to find out something that doesn't depend on that!!! BECAUSE tests after tests, 100 years of research, billions $, show that "Trevor" doesn't have the ability to control his actions! "Trevor" is only a post hoc confabulation! meaning physical processes in the brain happened - they generate a solution - they feed the solution in the self computation (Trevor) that is constantly running - "Trevor" has the illusion that HE has made a decision. thinking is AUTOMATIC, IT JUST HAPPENS TO "YOU"! "Trevor" doesn't decide! decisions are fed into it! AND if someone objects and says "NO! even if "i" do not decide, those unconscious mechanical, automatic, decisions/thoughts are also part of me. they are ALL PART OF ME! so the decision is mine" - THAN IT CHANGES NOTHING! IT ONLY STRENGTHENS THAT YOU'RE AN AUTOMATIC UNCONSCIOUS MACHINE! RANDOMNESS ONLY MAKES "Trevor" EVEN MORE REDUNDANT! because randomness is the ARCHENEMY of will, just as much as determinism. so don't go further with quantum mechanics! do you know that computers work by quantum tunnelling - it doesn't give them free will! free will is a mathematical impossibility, logical impossibility . you can't be CAUSA SUI! IT'S TRUE: YOU CANNOT BE PREDICTED! THAT IS NOT FREE WILL! i can bring you a random number operating computing device - IT ALSO MAKES DECISIONS, ALSO QUANTUM DECISIONS, ALSO CANNOT BE PREDICTED! guess what? it does not have free will :))
trevor... all you have is that damn theorem and you cling to it like it's your pacifier... which i suspect it is. it pacifies your ego self :)) the ones that live only to strengthen their inner desires live a life of lies. you'll die with that theorem in your lap, just like those that died "absolutely convinced" "knowing" the earth is flat, the sun rises, there's only one solar system in the universe that has a special one of a kind planet, earth is the centre of all universe, man is centre of creation, man is totally different from all animals and they were solely made for his use and enjoyment, etc etc. you have everything in common with those that died believing in lies... the fact that you don't think! you only get hooked (line and sinker) to those ideas that make you warm and fuzzy inside, that complement your ego. i gave you a dozen sound arguments. you keep pointing to that one insignificant theorem, that has nothing to do with what i said. nighty nite trevor, don't forget to tuck to bed the koshen conway theorem :))
i don't like how he's using the word 'random' before even getting to the complexity of today's universe. QM aside, randomness must be at the other end of the spectrum from order and simplicity.
The universe is just increasing complexity from the infinitely small fractals that started it right up through atoms, us, planets galaxies all existing within continually updated feedback loops. Why do we see the golden ratio in everything from particles to galaxies? As these are the fractals that began this complexity hence us seeing it throughout. This can explain the meaning of life, which is to strive towards more complexity. If you take something like art or music our appreciation of complex patterns is what makes it appealing to us and we strive to create more of it.
The copy program might be simple but he's borrowing the complexity from pre existing structures. His theory does nothing to explain complexity. It just acknowledges the existence of complexity in the universe.
Wooly. And naked sheep all about (we, the ignorant laymen who must be patronized by the high priests of occult, faith-based physics). We jus suppose to go like, 'Wow! Dis dude know stuff we ain't never gon dig.'
There's no such thing as evolution, we ain't pokémons, you will always try to explain things the way you percieve them but will always end up as a theory, formulate a law that proves this evolution.
You were honest enough to admit "we do not know" re explanation of the complexity of the universe. But, then you claimed gravity on it's own is enough to account for it. Fail.
