Comments on: Programming the Universe: Seth Lloyd

By: Dee Dee

Dee Dee — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 08:37:49 +0000

Today is,
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
I bought the book Programming the Universe today, and am waiting for it in the mail. The person that wrote about the book titled, “Programming the Universe,” make it sound like something that goes along with what I’m writing about. I am wondering if some people try to read to much into an element of reality. If you look at space as one thought, and time as another idea, when you write up a formulas or theory that talk about each item. Reality is here all around us, and time and space are relative to where we are. Einstein said that didn’t he? Einstein said that relativity has to do with something dragging time and space with it. That it was gravity created from the mass of something I guess? We carry our personal baggage with us where ever we go. Our personal baggage is who we are, and how we got to where we are. Since time and space are man made concepts created to help express realty, times and space are tools, we carry with us the tools to express our reality. like our memories of emotions and event that we carry with us. So we have something that is relative to this point where we stand and we express right now with concepts. That is why time and space are relative to now. Now I’ll see if the writer think that the earth’s gravity drags timespace, has spacewarp, warped space, or timewarp on a place that can be computer enhanced to changed.
I wrote a short story and a poem about programing a quark-quantum-computer. .

I love mind candy don’t you. Reading is always a nice kind of mind candy when the books is thoughtful, or witty.
Dee Dee Joan Marie Fountian

By: prestidigitator

prestidigitator — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 06:13:19 +0000

@Ravenent: Er…well…see I knew that sentence would get me into trouble. But see…the Quantum Mega Computer which is a wrong term in itself was not created per se. Lloyd states that, ‘in the beginning’, it could have been just a couple of bits of information (i.e entropy) that were variables in the computation which went forth to give rise to complexity.

A very interesting part of the book is the definition of complexity. For example, 3.14270….. is ‘more complex’ than 22/7. Man…you should read it. Bet you’ll get a kick out of it.

@Jinx That my dear, is a very interesting concept. Remember Asimov’s short story, ‘The Last Question‘? They build a supercomputer to ‘compute’ the greatest question; the meaning of life. The story ends thus:

“The consciousness of AC encompassed all of what had once been a Universe and brooded over what was now Chaos. Step by step, it must be done.

And AC said, “LET THERE BE LIGHT!”

And there was light—- “

(http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html)

By: jinx

jinx — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 05:49:36 +0000

hmmm…what if the quantum mega-computer created God?…aah well…..i think i’ll wait till the scientist guys get it right

By: Ravenent

Ravenent — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 05:42:04 +0000

Seth Lloyd also gives valuable insights as to why the intelligent design debate may be moot because, if the universe is a quantum computer that creates complexity from simplicity bit by bit, serendipitous coincidences within cosmic chaos are inevitable.

Err, I think not. a) Most ID advocates are too far down the path to turn back, and b) They can always turn around and ask with a knowing (irritating) grin, “Ah, but who created the quantum mega-computer that is the universe in the first place?”

Re. the book, it seems like a good read so I’m gonna see if I can lay my hands on it here. My guess was spot on though – as soon as I saw the subject, I knew your bro must have turned you on to it!

By: prestidigitator

prestidigitator — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 21:39:10 +0000

@BPSK Er…yes. I was hoping nobody would notice.

By: Bhel Puri & Seekh Kabab

Bhel Puri & Seekh Kabab — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 05:22:40 +0000

“serendipitous coincidences within cosmic chaos are inevitable” – you know the ID crowd will have a field day with that statement, right?

Nice post, I am going to add this to my list.

By: prestidigitator

prestidigitator — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 23:33:18 +0000

Dude…I suggest you stay away from that book…it’s that new age crap a la “What the bleep do we know” film. Whenever they use quantum physics and new agey mysticism, it turns out to be nothing other than pseudo science: the worst kind of science.

I’m not a big fan of string theory mostly because I can’t understand it. It seems too much like coming with a new theory just to prove an existing theory which defeats the purpose. I’d prefer it if a theory became a law through observational evidence without relying too much on new theories. Occam’s razor i.e. the simplest explanation.

By: bApHoMEt

bApHoMEt — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 14:43:46 +0000

i found this book when i was walking around Barnes & Noble, The Dancing Wu Li Masters by Gary Zukav. I didnt find it the next time i visited and eventually forgot about it. but now that you've mentioned physics, i feel i must get it. So what is your stand on superstring theories and M-theory? i mean, they are pretty hypothetical arent they?