Theory of Everything

  • 14 Replies
  • 380 Views
*

ivan.moony

  • Trusty Member
  • *********
  • Terminator
  • *
  • 800
  • Can computers cry?
    • Structured Type System
Theory of Everything
« on: November 23, 2017, 03:51:17 pm »
Just wondering, are physicians taking a wrong approach to understanding the Universe? If you think about it, they seek for math formulas involving all kinds of constants, testing it on some experiments and report their results on understanding the matter and its dynamics.

Now, wouldn't a search for general knowledge base definition and inference be potentially more fruitful? What if we could generally define what a problem is, in a sense of understanding it, and solving it, applicable on some area of time-space? With unique algorithm, mimicking what a human brain does, we could catch all the flies around in a single move.

Maybe a physics formula isn't just right what we are looking for, for understanding the Universe. Maybe that formula should have a form of knowledge system that describes not only how things behave, but also what *could* be known from some experimental data range. And that formula would be, guess what, an artificial intelligence inference algorithm!
« Last Edit: November 23, 2017, 06:50:32 pm by ivan.moony »
If you vaporize a teardrop, you get a salt.   :flake:

*

Thierry

  • Nomad
  • ***
  • 57
  • God is a sphere. Press 9 to enter.
Re: Theory of Everything
« Reply #1 on: November 23, 2017, 05:30:51 pm »
Just wondering, are physicians taking a wrong approach to understanding the Universe? If you think about it, they seek for math formulas involving all kinds of constants, testing it on some experiments and report their results on understanding the matter and its dynamics.

Now, wouldn't a search for general knowledge base definition and inference be potentially more fruitful? What if we could generally define what a problem is, in a sense of understanding it, then solving it, applicable on some area of time-space? With unique algorithm, mimicking what a human brain does, we could catch all the flies around in a single move.

Maybe a physics formula isn't just right what we are looking for, for understanding the Universe. Maybe that formula should have a form of knowledge system that describes not only how things behave, but also what *could* be known from some experimental data range. And that formula would be, guess what, an artificial intelligence inference algorithm!

According to you , why they would take a wrong approach  ?

*

Thierry

  • Nomad
  • ***
  • 57
  • God is a sphere. Press 9 to enter.
Re: Theory of Everything
« Reply #2 on: November 23, 2017, 05:56:02 pm »
More precisely what is the exact problematic you consider the physicists go wrong ?

*

ivan.moony

  • Trusty Member
  • *********
  • Terminator
  • *
  • 800
  • Can computers cry?
    • Structured Type System
Re: Theory of Everything
« Reply #3 on: November 23, 2017, 06:44:58 pm »
Quote
More precisely what is the exact problematic you consider the physicists go wrong ?

Maybe *wrong* is too heavy word. Maybe I should rather say un-optimal. ToE seeks for connecting different theory fragments by hand. What I'm thinking is to leave out fragments as holes in theory and search for connection glue instead. Fragments would fit in afterwards. This would also fit "infinite number of onion layers" theory. What if there are no elementary particles? What if the Universe is a fractal function that could be observed in infinite scale in either direction?

Isolating one layer, and knowing *everything* about it would give us basis of having in possession knowledge about simulating that layer and everything above it inside a computer, including living beings. And including intelligence also. Discovering each layer wouldn't be a separate quest among each layer. Having reasoning inference rules, these rules would be a constant, while elementary particles (of the layer) behavior pattern would be variables that fit into "holes" between constants. Rules would represent AI constant. Elementary particles would represent data it operates on.

Just imagine if we could completely explain just one layer.  :D We'd get access to particles that can build everything above the layer, and that layer could serve analogous to what is assembly to microchips. We could "program" the Universe like we program computers now. That seem to avoid "interpreter inside interpreter" effect mentioned somewhere else on this site. Programs could be compiled to these particles of the complete bottom layer by using some special methods like molecular (or atomic, quark, or something even smaller) engineering, sinking the calculations to the layer below, using the essence of the Universe for doing calculations. Compilers usually beat interpreters in speed. So, how fast would be nano-machines built (compiled-printed) specifically for some program we pass to imagined molecular-atomic-quark compiler-printer? Quantum computers awake some indices about it.

I'm just brainstorming a bit, it is all merely a theory, but the future looks fun to me if we manage not to extinct ourselves and everyone else from this planet. I'm holding my fingers crossed, just in case :-X .
If you vaporize a teardrop, you get a salt.   :flake:

*

Thierry

  • Nomad
  • ***
  • 57
  • God is a sphere. Press 9 to enter.
Re: Theory of Everything
« Reply #4 on: November 23, 2017, 08:02:48 pm »
Quote
More precisely what is the exact problematic you consider the physicists go wrong ?

Maybe *wrong* is too heavy word. Maybe I should rather say un-optimal. ToE seeks for connecting different theory fragments by hand. What I'm thinking is to leave out fragments as holes in theory and search for connection glue instead. Fragments would fit in afterwards. This would also fit "infinite number of onion layers" theory. What if there are no elementary particles? What if the Universe is a fractal function that could be observed in infinite scale in either direction?

Isolating one layer, and knowing *everything* about it would give us basis of having in possession knowledge about simulating that layer and everything above it inside a computer, including living beings. And including intelligence also. Discovering each layer wouldn't be a separate quest among each layer. Having reasoning inference rules, these rules would be a constant, while elementary particles (of the layer) behavior pattern would be variables that fit into "holes" between constants. Rules would represent AI constant. Elementary particles would represent data it operates on.

Just imagine if we could completely explain just one layer.  :D We'd get access to particles that can build everything above the layer, and that layer could serve analogous to what is assembly to microchips. We could "program" the Universe like we program computers now. That seem to avoid "interpreter inside interpreter" effect mentioned somewhere else on this site. Programs could be compiled to these particles of the complete bottom layer by using some special methods like molecular (or atomic, quark, or something even smaller) engineering, sinking the calculations to the layer below, using the essence of the Universe for doing calculations. Compilers usually beat interpreters in speed. So, how fast would be nano-machines built (compiled-printed) specifically for some program we pass to imagined molecular-atomic-quark compiler-printer? Quantum computers awake some indices about it.

I'm just brainstorming a bit, it is all merely a theory, but the future looks fun to me if we manage not to extinct ourselves and everyone else from this planet. I'm holding my fingers crossed, just in case :-X .

I don't believe in humans to make theories about universe. We understand shit. The only way is to know is to enter in contact with those who really know : aliens.

*

infurl

  • Trusty Member
  • *******
  • Starship Trooper
  • *
  • 305
  • Humans will disappoint you.
    • Home Page
Re: Theory of Everything
« Reply #5 on: November 23, 2017, 08:14:29 pm »
I don't believe in humans to make theories about universe. We understand shit. The only way is to know is to enter in contact with those who really know : aliens.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news Thierry but I'm in regular contact with the aliens and they don't know shit either. At least I'll be celebrating Christmas in orbit around Saturn though.

*

Thierry

  • Nomad
  • ***
  • 57
  • God is a sphere. Press 9 to enter.
Re: Theory of Everything
« Reply #6 on: November 23, 2017, 08:19:31 pm »
I don't believe in humans to make theories about universe. We understand shit. The only way is to know is to enter in contact with those who really know : aliens.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news Thierry but I'm in regular contact with the aliens and they don't know shit either. At least I'll be celebrating Christmas in orbit around Saturn though.

Ok. Hate yourself then.

*

Thierry

  • Nomad
  • ***
  • 57
  • God is a sphere. Press 9 to enter.
Re: Theory of Everything
« Reply #7 on: November 23, 2017, 08:29:15 pm »
Theory of Everything makes sense if it involves theories that are not humans. Pushing away alternatives like the way infurl did some lines above is desobeying to the first fundamental science rule : to be free to explain your point of view. I guess this is the hardest thing in a theory process.

*

ivan.moony

  • Trusty Member
  • *********
  • Terminator
  • *
  • 800
  • Can computers cry?
    • Structured Type System
Re: Theory of Everything
« Reply #8 on: November 23, 2017, 08:40:56 pm »
Theory of Everything makes sense if it involves theories that are not humans.
I actually had some strange thought that the Universe couldn't be explained by humans. Maybe logic that humans experience is not capable of explaining the Universe logic, but that's just maybe. I still have the other doors opened.

Pushing away alternatives like the way infurl did some lines above is desobeying to the first fundamental science rule : to be free to explain your point of view. I guess this is the hardest thing in a theory process.
I advice to be the difference you want to see around you. Things are not always milk and honey, but as for my concern, I'm trying not to push bad things further. I'd like to be surprised and to see an appropriate reaction from both sides, but maybe I'm asking too much. :-[
If you vaporize a teardrop, you get a salt.   :flake:

*

Thierry

  • Nomad
  • ***
  • 57
  • God is a sphere. Press 9 to enter.
Re: Theory of Everything
« Reply #9 on: November 23, 2017, 09:29:11 pm »
Theory of Everything makes sense if it involves theories that are not humans.
I actually had some strange thought that the Universe couldn't be explained by humans. Maybe logic that humans experience is not capable of explaining the Universe logic, but that's just maybe. I still have the other doors opened.

Pushing away alternatives like the way infurl did some lines above is desobeying to the first fundamental science rule : to be free to explain your point of view. I guess this is the hardest thing in a theory process.
I advice to be the difference you want to see around you. Things are not always milk and honey, but as for my concern, I'm trying not to push bad things further. I'd like to be surprised and to see an appropriate reaction from both sides, but maybe I'm asking too much. :-[

I subscribe to everything you said above. I would even complete this answer by saying that AI would be our ultimate tool to enter in contact with aliens. So in my opinion AI should a "mean" not an "end " to achieve fundamental universe theories.

*

Zero

  • Trusty Member
  • *******
  • Starship Trooper
  • *
  • 481
  • Fictional character
    • SYN CON DEV LOG
Re: Theory of Everything
« Reply #10 on: November 24, 2017, 07:58:04 pm »
I hate to be the bearer of bad news Thierry but I'm in regular contact with the aliens and they don't know shit either. At least I'll be celebrating Christmas in orbit around Saturn though.
I knew there was something about you  ;D

The Wikipedia article was interesting, thank you ivan.moony. This article made me feel all small   :o

*

Art

  • At the end of the game, the King and Pawn go into the same box.
  • Global Moderator
  • *******************
  • Prometheus
  • *
  • 4625
Re: Theory of Everything
« Reply #11 on: November 25, 2017, 05:00:16 pm »
It's about theoretical physics with no solution at present. Just an endless loop of "what-ifs" and conjecture.

Like the IOT (Internet Of Things), not all things will / should be connected and some will never be connected.

I would just about wager that if or when we (humans) construct and set loose, an Artificial Super Intelligence (ASI), it will be the last Invention we create. By that time, it will be able to offer a conclusion to this TOE, if one could actually exist. That theory would just be child's play for it, by comparison to what it's capable of solving.



In the world of AI, it's the thought that counts!

*

infurl

  • Trusty Member
  • *******
  • Starship Trooper
  • *
  • 305
  • Humans will disappoint you.
    • Home Page
Re: Theory of Everything
« Reply #12 on: November 25, 2017, 07:21:24 pm »


Lots of well researched, entertaining and informative videos on that channel. This particular link is to the first in a series about the idea that we all exist in a computer simulation, one of the more outlandish but not impossible "theories of everything".

*

keghn

  • Trusty Member
  • ********
  • Replicant
  • *
  • 689
Re: Theory of Everything
« Reply #13 on: November 25, 2017, 08:13:24 pm »

 Will could a ASI know everything?????????????????????????
 How many bytes do need explain a atom and it be behavior???
 Let us say one byte could do this. Then how many atoms does it take to make one bit memory element or a byte?
 One quantum bit can hold 4 bits of information. That not good enough.
 The best data compression is thirty to one. Even a million to one still would not be good enough.
 A powerful ASI could instead arrange all the mass universe into a predictable repeating pattern. Then make perfectly round asteroids in
compounded binary orbits. Where they are at the a mass that does not cause internal heat. And does not cause heat by tidal force.
  The ASI could do one better by arrange the mass in the universe into repeating pattern of fast memory crystals
and a less repeating masses of processors peppered with in.
 Then most of the energy in the universe would be suck out. The asteroid would be perfect reflects of radio waves and light.
 All extra information would be stored by bouncing radio, and other electromagnetic, wave between theses asteroids.

 Common 2.45 gigahertz wi fi can transmit 5.5 megabits per second. It take radio waves to travel between Earth and Jupiter about 5.2 hours.
 That is 2.0592 X 10 ^11 or almost a quarter trillion bits of information bounce between the two.
 There are 1 X 10^82 atoms, guessed to be, in the known universe. 

How many thoughts are contained in a Mars Bar? - Sixty Symbols:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=uc9P5yb3Xtc 
 

*

ivan.moony

  • Trusty Member
  • *********
  • Terminator
  • *
  • 800
  • Can computers cry?
    • Structured Type System
Re: Theory of Everything
« Reply #14 on: November 25, 2017, 08:52:15 pm »
Intelligence is about generalization. It is not knowing in what state every system in the Universe is. It is about predicting what will happen if a system A is in state B, and then doing some operation C on the system A. I assume that it is possible to know what kinds of A and C could exist, regardless of specific B-s that take the whole Universe to memorize all of them.
If you vaporize a teardrop, you get a salt.   :flake:

 


Users Online

29 Guests, 1 User

Most Online Today: 54. Most Online Ever: 208 (August 27, 2008, 09:36:30 am)

Articles