The Universe as Automaton

Preface: I am not a physicist by training, but the following text will contain a few thoughts about physics from the perspective of a theoretical computer scientist.

Recently there have been several publications by members of high IQ societies concerning the universe and, most of all, the question of the number of dimensions that there are. Here are my thoughts on that matter.

I believe there are really only three dimensions of space. I believe so because human beings can only move in these three dimensions, even if we make use of all the technical gadgets we have. If, as I also believe, space is discrete - that is, it consists of many small points similar to the pixels of a screen - the current state of the universe could be modeled as a three-dimensional matrix. Einstein considered time the fourth dimension, but this was a formalism to better describe his theory. In my opinion, however, time is something different than space. Nevertheless one may add time as a fourth dimension to this matrix; this results in a four-dimensional matrix able to represent the state of the universe at any point in time. (NB: This representation is only theoretical as it is not possible to have something that is as large as the entire universe represented by a computer - except, maybe, if it has enough redundancy that a suitable data compression algorithm could be applied...)

Would the use of even more dimensions make sense? Yes; at least one more dimension would make sense. Some people believe in the existence of parallel universes. And even those who don't believe in that usually concede that not everything is happening in a deterministic manner. So there are several possible states per point in time. These states could be represented by a fifth dimension. What is especially interesting is the question where transitions between states are possible. And that's basically what physics is all about. If it is possible to have the universe represented by a five-dimensional matrix, then what physics deals with is the possible transitions between the states. This would make the universe what theoretical computer scientists call a deterministic, finite automaton.

I haven't talked about the size of the universe yet. If the hypothesis is right that there was initially just one point and the universe expanded with time, this means that the number of states per unit of time is growing with time, as well as the number of transitions. I consider this idea intriguing. I also admit that it is probably not too original since it is quite natural to come up with it for someone educated in theoretical computer science. Stephen Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science" seems to head into a similar direction; also, google up the keyword "cellular automata".

One thing that is interesting (amongst others) is that every deterministic finite automaton can be represented by a regular language. Might it be possible that the universe can be represented by a regular language? If it is, then this is the "theory of everything" which physicists are currently searching for. That said, I honestly think this concept is worth pursuing!

Claus Volko, cdvolko (at) gmail (dot) com

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Proof that Every Grammar for English has Self-Embedding to an Unbounded Depth

Authors: Daniel Pohl, Iakovos Koukas, Noam Chomsky Introduction The distinction between competence and performance has played a foundational role in the philosophy of linguistics. Competence is a grasp of the structural properties of all the sentences of a language. Performance involves actual real-time use and may diverge from the underlying competence. Idealizing away from psycholinguistically relevant factors like limits on memory and processing plays a significant role in various essential debates within the field of linguistics. Perhaps the most central and famous is the issue of whether English is a finite-state language. This article provides a proof of the relevant theorem, originally from Chomsky 1959. The claim that any finite-state automaton does not accept English is supported by showing that every grammar for English has self-embedding to an unbounded depth. Self-Embedding The economical production forms for context-free languages, especially the Chomsky normal-for
Read more

Symbiont Conversion Theory

Abstract Symbiont Conversion Theory is a new scientific theory, summarizing and generalizing efforts that have been made by various researchers in the past years; it could even be perceived as a new scientific paradigm. This theory states that microorganisms and cells which are commonly considered to display parasitic behaviour can be "educated" and transformed into symbionts. This is not just a hypothesis but a theory since there is already evidence that proves that this is possible. The primary motivation for developing this theory is the failure of classical approaches to therapy of cancer and infectious diseases that follow the paradigm "destroy and kill". It is common knowledge about medical doctors that chemotherapy and radiation therapy have detrimental side effects on healthy, functional tissue, and also that antibiotics can harm benevolent cells. These negative side effects can possibly be avoided by the new approach of treating parasitic diseases by conver
Read more

Optimal IQ: A Speculative Model

Image
How we profit from IQ is frequently talked about in IQ societies. And the foregone conclusion: the higher the better . However, turns out there’s a cost associated with higher IQ, one put forth in a recent paper[1] indicating the good of high intelligence; more opportunities, higher self–awareness, etc and the more elusive bad or dark side to higher IQ; imbalances (mental and physical), debilitation, etc. In other words, there is a cost associated with IQ increase beyond some as yet, unknown value. Now, optimality, as we all know, is not necessarily being on top of the heap or at a maximum. Take an aspirin, it will get rid of a headache. Take a bottle of aspirin and you’ll be in the ER getting your stomach pumped. Even money— turns out you don’t want to make too much —has an optimal value being about $95,000.00 US dollars per year in the long run, that is, if one wants to be happy— optimally of course. Too, to determine optimality, as we all have learned, requires in the simplest sense
Read more