It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Wolfram suggests that the universe can be modeled using points in space and rules that, when applied, generate more points. As more points are added, a network is built. He further suggests that model universes can be built using hypergraphs that describe such networks—and the rules that are applied eventually determine the characteristics that make up a given universe. And this, he believes, suggests that it should be possible to start with a few points in space and develop a model that depicts the real universe—at least as we know it. All that is needed, he suggests, is for somebody to come up with the right rules. And that is the whole point of his project. Those who are interested need only visit the project website and begin downloading documents that further explain Wolfram's theories and how citizen scientists can get involved—and if they desire, create some rules and add them to the project.
Here’s roughly how this works. The key point is to think about what an observer who is themselves part of the multiway system will conclude about the world. Yes, there are different possible paths of history. But—just as in our discussion of relativity—the only aspect of them that an observer will ever be aware of is the causal relationships between the events they involve. But the point is that—even though when looked at from “outside” the paths are different—causal invariance implies that the network of relationships between causal events (which is all that’s relevant when one’s inside the system) will always be exactly the same.
In other words—much as in the case of relativity—even though from outside the system there may seem to be many possible “threads of time”, from inside the system causal invariance implies that there’s in a sense ultimately just one thread of time, or, in effect, one objective reality.
For me this is a very satisfactory solution to the mystery of why some particular rule would be picked for our universe. The answer is that there isn’t ultimately ever a particular rule; basically any rule capable of universal computation will do. It’s just that—with some particular mode of description that we choose to use—there will be some definite rule that describes our universe. And in a sense whatever specialness there is to this rule is just a reflection of the specialness of our mode of description. In effect, the only thing special about the universe to us is us ourselves.
And this suggests a definite answer to another longstanding question: could there be other universes? The answer in our setup is basically no. We can’t just “pick another rule and get another universe”. Because in a sense our universe already contains all possible rules, so there can only be one of it. (There could still be other universes that do various levels of hypercomputation.)
But there is something perhaps more bizarre that is possible. While we view our universe—and reality—through our particular type of description language, there are endless other possible description languages which can lead to descriptions of reality that will seem coherent (and even in some appropriate definition “meaningful”) within themselves, but which will seem to us to correspond to utterly incoherent and meaningless aspects of our universe.
originally posted by: WorldUnderCeej
a reply to: chr0naut
Come on man, that page is MASSIVE. You guys gotta attempt some kind of intro or abstract when a thread source is that big and full of complexes of tech speak.
ATS attracts regular joes more and more as new members. How do you expect a layperson to tackle this beast if you don't show them where to put their feet?
Like one or two paragraphs as a primer so newbies don't come in blind. Nothing crazy, I can tell you want the author to speak and I concur with the motion.
My words may appear scathing, but that's not how it's meant. It would be a shame for the thread to be passed up by most when it can be one of the better posts so far this year. I see that much potential here.
ATS veterans will swing by to escape the Covid monotony. That alone makes me giggle like a schoolgirl. It would be a KILLER first dig. If it doesn't kill them, they will be ready for the crazy that ATS will drop on you out of nowhere.
Star and flag for sure. If this pans out imma have to send you a pack of bad-ass stickers or the Blue Bonnet of Ultimate Power. Something worthy of an ATS champion.
Can't give you my lvl 6+ Mace, though. Can't do it.
A computer visualization depicts a “hypergraph” consisting of relationships between points constructed by repeatedly applying a simple rule for expanding, or “updating,” the network. Stephen Wolfram believes a massively complex hypergraph could represent all of physical space and its contents, a clue to finding the fundamental theory of physics.
come up with the right rules. And that is the whole point of his project. Those who are interested need only visit the project website and begin downloading documents that further explain Wolfram's theories and how citizen scientists can get involved—and if they desire, create some rules and add them to the project.
no he isn't. He's answering based purely on his knowledge and even says
originally posted by: Cogidubnus
He is able to describe Dark Matter and Gravity ...
...Of course, there are lots of details about this—which no doubt depend on the particular underlying rule...