/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15491404

yes it's all 1s and 0s like in the matrix

No, it would look like the No AA scenario. But since there is zero evidence for the universe being anything but continuous I wouldn't worry about it.

>>15491410
Continuous means infinite information, unless space is emergent phenomenon - i.e. you could possibly "construct" every position, but underlying description of universe is different and finite.

>>15491418
prove it

>>15491404
There is a certain length at which meaningfully measurable subdivision is no longer possible, yes.

Computer science dimwits shouldn't be allowed to talk about physics. All they see is their shitty little simulations and suddenly they believe the whole universe has to behave like their machines.

>>15491421
Prove what?
To represent every real number at the same time you need infinite number of bits of memory - that's non-negotiable.

But of course you can still define some of the real (computable) numbers and their construction with algorithm that will finish after finite number of steps (and description of that algorithm would take finite number of bits in given language).

Emergent "continuous" space could work the same way - every position could exist, just not at the same time and would have to be constructed by the universe's "simulation" after some time.

>>15491443
Yes.
Otherwise it's ultimately magic and there is no point even talking about it - you can invent any magic you want and say it's valid because why not.

>>15491430
Which has nothing to do with whether the universe is discrete or continuous.

>>15491450
>if my computer can't do it, it must be magic
The delusions of a CS pleb who can't into physics.

>>15491443
Also: you do realize all mathematics so far (and in the future) is perfectly computable - all definitions and proofs are contained in finite amount of information and took finite amount of steps to derive.
You literally haven't done anything that computer couldn't potentially do.

>>15491456
I guess you believe you can count to infinity just because you defined it.

>>15491459
>Also: you do realize all mathematics so far (and in the future) is perfectly computable
You couldn't be more wrong. It's like you never bothered to engage with the topic of uncomputability.

>>15491461
Yes, I know there exist uncomputable numbers (for example).
But you can't compute them anymore than a computer can.

Btw. you do realize original computers where humans, right?

>>15491460
That's basically your own claim here >>15491459

>>15491404
it's called quantum mechanics, chud

>>15491466
>Yes, I know there exist uncomputable numbers (for example).
That's only the tip of the iceberg. As I said, it's obvious you never engaged with the topic.

>Btw. you do realize original computers where humans, right?
Meds, now!

>>15491468
What I mean is that sets of (human-made) definitions and proofs are perfectly countable and finite.

Just because you defined something that is infinite or uncountable or even uncomputable doesn't mean it exists in any real sense outside of its definition.

So for example: of course a computer can't compute uncomputable number.
But it can store its definition.
And use it to derive the same theorems and proofs that a human did.

>>15491404
are you asking if space itself is subdivided into discrete chunks that cannot be further subdivided?
like the fucking hammer units that make up a source engine game?
if so no

>>15491482
Well, you know it's actually still undecided by science right?

I guess what I'm asking is:
Doesn't discrete space imply its anisotropy?
Like how do you construct discrete isotropic space?

>>15491404
discreteness doesn't necessarily imply regular lattices

>>15491418
>Continuous means infinite information
false. a line is continuous, but can be described with very little information.

>>15491480
Are you okay with natural numbers, finitist moron? How about subsets of natural numbers?

>>15491500
But then the line is emergent property of its (finite in amount of information) definition.

Even in actual real world, if you draw a line on piece of paper you can count number of atoms of ink that form it - I don't mean it as a proof of finite space, just as an analogy - just because you defined it mathematically as continuous doesn't mean it's actually continuous in practice.

>>15491515
*finite->discrete

>>15491494
Can irregular lattices be isotropic?

>>15491533
>irregular lattices

>>15491515
you are missing the point. continuous doesn't imply infinite information.

>>15491556
But continuous finite information spaces are represented by (well: by definition) finite information.
So it is truly continuous when you have a finite array of (very discrete by nature) bits describing it?

It's continuous like rational numbers are continuous - i.e. you can get any precision you want but ultimately those are still two very discrete integers that you used to construct it.

>>15491593
You're hung up on representation. It does not have to be computable to exist. Example: there are more chess games than atoms in the universe. They cannot be represented by bits in our universe, yet each game can and does exist.
We can represent and manipulate infinity with perfect precision using logic and math.
Fields best describe the fabric of the universe and assigns a physical quantity to every point in space time. All evidence points to space time as being continuous.

>>15491404
no because the pixels are less than planck length, thus instead of aliasing you get noise

>>15491453
do you have proof that planck constant wasn't fine tuned to match pixel length of universe? since it's meaningful doesn't mean the universe isn't also fine-tuned to match that constant in discrete way both at once, we already know things are fine-tuned, this could be another one, schizophasia dummy

>>15491832
> proof that [...] wasn't
Not how proof works.

>>15491847
and this is how proof works?
>Which has nothing to do with whether the universe is discrete or continuous.
and you know that how? faggot

>>15491880
Because Planck's assumptions were based on his ideas about the feasibility of measurement technology, not on any actual size limitation for the universe.

>>15491882
yes i know it's based on various constants like speed of light and strong/em forces, how do you know all of these don't come up from some discrete property of universe? dumb piece of shit, i hate you soienceboys so fucking much, always so sure of yourselves because you know an equation or two

>>15491880
> >Which has nothing to do with whether the universe is discrete or continuous.
That's not a proof either. It highlights why the post I replied to is nonsense.

>>15491801
Poor example as number of possible chess games is countable.
Real numbers (true continuum) are uncountable (even in just a short segment).

>>15491404

All of this work has been done as soon as you are willing to accept that maybe, just maybe, Science As An Establishment (tm) doesn't have all the answers. And just maaaaybe independent researchers might have figured somethings out.

>>15491404
Why would I assume this when analog computers exist and are used even still today? The next breakthrough in CS will not be AI, it will be the incorporation and reuniteding of the field with the continuous analog computer.

>>15491885
I know many equations. More than 3 at least

>>15491934
Perfect example because OP is hung up on "representable by number of bits in the universe".

>>15492277
Particle moves from point A to point B on a line.
Representing its position at given moment takes finite amount of information, sure.

But representing all positions it was at inbetween during its travel (over the continuous time) requires infinite amount of information.
And not just countable infinity but uncountable infinity.

>but I can define line segment (and all it's position) on real line with [A, B]!
It's a cop out - this continuous line is emergent property of very finite-information (and discrete) symbolic math you're doing in your head.

>>15492422
ok anon but what do you gain from representing a line as anything more then just point A to point B with coordinates for the segment in-between

Hey OP dipshit, why are you avoiding this question?

>>15491510

>>15491448
The real number line and memory has nothing to do with the universe you retard.

>>15492721
It does if you believe space is continuous.
"Continuous" is mathematical term.
DESU I don't understand what you're getting at with your statement.

>>15491510
I don't know what you mean with "okay".
Ask a meaningful question.

>>15492186
>what is noise

>>15491404
Suppose it were discrete.
How does one discrete point affect another?
How does one discrete instance of time evolve to the next?
You dun goofed.
Btw:>>15491418
>muh information
Information is NOT a physical concept, no matter how long and how hard they shill it and how many quantum computing phds quack about it.
Information is a concept defined by human endeavors.
Causality and correlation can be physical, information is meaningless.

>>15492972
> "Continuous" is mathematical term.
It's used in many fields. You cannot apply the word and expect it to mean the same thing in each one. I bet you're one of those people that think because infinity can arise is some law of physics that means infinity can exist in the universe.

>>15491418
>Continuous means infinite information
There's information and then there's possible information. The possible information has infinite degrees of freedom. The actual information, the physical information, at any given moment is finite.

Not sure if it's the best analogy but you're kind of saying circles or spheres can't exist because one could track around a sphere infinitely many times, and therefore spheres "contain infinite information". Well, no. Potential information does not mean infinite instantiated or actualized.

>>15492986
>Information is NOT a physical concept, no matter how long and how hard they shill it and how many quantum computing phds quack about it.
There are two different definitions of information. The physical one pertains to shannon entropy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_in_thermodynamics_and_information_theory

Sure, there are quacks who reify conceptual information with physical information, but that doesn't discount the non-quack one everybody uses. For statistical thermodynamics the formula are basically the same. Physical information as a concept represents the entropy of a system, and that definitely is a physical thing that does exist.

>>15491404
>Wouldn't it mean that underlying field describing everything has limited resolution
Yes. You only have to render to the resolution of the specs of the sensory apparatuses or the consciousneses immersed in the reality or any measuring devices that the players develop though. You don't have to render the whole universe down to the planck resolution at all times, even when no consciousness is there to demand the data stream, or some measuring device that the players develop, micr/tele scope, ect. Computational complexity is kept to a minimum. Causation is non-local, ie, causation comes from computation coming from "outside" of the virtual spacetime. It isn't coming from the microscopic level inside the spacetime. The microscopic stuff only gets rendered as effects on measuring devices. You render on demand, so you only render effects as IF there were a microscopic bottoms up causation. It's a SIMULATION of a bottoms up causatic observer independent matter based world. See pic.

>>15491404
You will learn a lot about how the physical universe is rendered in this paper here op

On testing the simulation theory
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.00058.pdf

>>15491404
Notice in pic related here
>>15493650
>More precisely, using such techniques, the complexity of simulation would not be constrained by the apparent size of the universe or an underlying pre-determined mesh/grid size 4 but by the number of players and the resolution of the information made available for observation.
The rendering engine that renders the universe minimizes computational complexity by rendering only on demand. Hence all of the so called quantum weirdness, observer effect, wave particle duality, ect.

>>15493637
>>15493650
>resolution
>rendering
Stop playing videogames and masturbating to anime pornography. It's ruining your brain.

>>15493650
>>15493637
Or like literally every other thing we've ever seen it's a stochastic system and states are determined "non-locally" in the sense that the sum of the system produces mere apparent randomness locally. Zero simulation magical thinking required.
>>15493654
>Hence all of the so called quantum weirdness, observer effect, wave particle duality, ect.
Or states are determined like they are in every complex system and apparent weirdness is just bog standard determinism, just determined by the sum of the system. Somehow I doubt you'll be happy to learn you don't need crackpot retardation to explain reality though.

>>15491404
Here is the abstract from this
>>15493650
paper. You won't understand physics without this knowledge.
I don't play video games and I don't watch porn and I have never watch a single second of anime. I despise anime and actually, I am not a fan of the mongoloid race in general as people.

>>15493662
>Or states are determined like they are in every complex system and apparent weirdness is just bog standard determinism
OK, glad you have it figured out buddy. Great presentation of a counter argument by the way. Such great counter points and detail were displayed in your post.

>>15493655
whoops
this
>>15493665
>I don't play video games and I don't watch porn and I have never watch a single second of anime. I despise anime and actually, I am not a fan of the mongoloid race in general as people.
Was to you

>>15493675
>OK, glad you have it figured out buddy. Great presentation of a counter argument by the way. Such great counter points and detail were displayed in your post.
Inference from literally all the evidence we've ever seen so far is a great counter argument.
Stochastic quantum mechanics: 100% of the evidence
Imaginary simulation nonsense: 0% of the evidence

So, yes, it was in fact a fantastic counter argument. You just don't appear to know any of the relevant fact,s let alone anything about quantum mechanics, and think yourself smart because you understand some of the words in a quackpot theory.

>>15493665
>I don't play video games and I don't watch porn and I have never watch a single second of anime. I despise anime and actually, I am not a fan of the mongoloid race in general as people.
And that's why you believe you live in a videogame. I definitely believe you.

>>15491410
What is "no AA"?

>>15491418
What do you mean that space is "emergent"? How can it be emergent? Isn't it a fundamental dimension of the universe? Or a property of some kind?

>>15493662
>Or like literally every other thing we've ever seen it's a stochastic system and states are determined "non-locally" in the sense that the sum of the system produces mere apparent randomness locally.
All causation is non-local, in this case non-local meaning coming from processing "outside" of the physical (virtual) universe OR coming from none local agent causation free will awareness unit choices which act as an input device in an interactive/participatory programmatic way. The computer that computes the reality can not be within the virtual spacetime that is resultant of it's own computation. The computer MUST logically be "non-physical" from the point of view of those immersed in the reality, see pic
>And while the second option, that It does indeed come from Bit, sounds good, it is impossible for a physical world to compute itself. So logic reduces the three options above to two: either the physical world exists by itself alone and just happens to be very mathematically calculable, or it is in fact calculated and thus virtual.
The computer ends up being a mind/consciousness by the way, of which we are individuated units and clients of this all mind server which beams experiential data streams to the individuated minds/observers which creates an immersive experience which gives us the first person shooter vantage point we experience AS IF we were located in a head in a body operating in an observer independent matter based reality. Our minds are actually in the same (non-local) realm as the all mind, outside of the virtual space.

>>15492422
>It's a cop out - this continuous line is emergent property of very finite-information (and discrete) symbolic math you're doing in your head.
How can infinity "emerge" from the finite? I can understand the other way around, since that would entail "cutting out" a finite portion of infinity for examination.

>>15493702
This is just buddhism for fags who play too many videogames.

>>15493702
I don't care about fantasy stories. Zero reason to believe any of that and every reason to believe it works like every other dynamic system we model. 100% of the evidentiary support is for stochastic QM not invented children's stories for physicists.

>>15493682
Every statement I have made is completely consistent with observed data with regards to quantum theory and in fact represents the only model with ultimate explanatory power.
>So, yes, it was in fact a fantastic counter argument
You have no argument. I am right. And this is not to say I am the big smart guy by the way, most of all of it was discovered by people like konrad zuse, tom campbell, and others. If you put your pride behind you and start by reading this paper
>>15493650
there's still time for you old boy. Good luck, fella. The experiments in the paper are being conducted at two different labs right now. All will be confirmed.
Experiment one explained
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72qVppAoCc8&list=PLf8bCCRJkXgyvPeG2-E0lvU3tRzu476rg&index=2
A playlist of the experiments explained
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLf8bCCRJkXgyvPeG2-E0lvU3tRzu476rg

>>15491404
Only if its discrete in some kind of regular grid, like particles in a crystal. If it is instead discrete like particles in a fluid, with the placement of the discrete points not following any kind of regular pattern, then you can still have isotropy.

But yes, I think this line of reasoning does rule out any kind of discrete, grid-like "pixelation" of the universe, even at very small scales.

>>15493689
>And that's why you believe you live in a videogame. I definitely believe you.
The consciousness can not be "in" the virtual space of the VR. See pic. We are not a program. We INTERFACE with program through immersion. The feeling of "in-ness" is caused by immersion, which gives the feeling of the consciousness being in a head, on a body, operating in a vr (hence why you can look in a brain all you want but you will never see the subjective consciousness in there). Just as the consciousness is not "in" a dream, which is another virtual (informational, ie COMPUTED) consciousness based simulation of being "in" a matter based world.

>>15493637
>>15493650
>confusing the model (really, bandaid hack) with reality itself
why do scientists do this

>>15493738
Oh nevermind it's not videogames, you watched that tranny wachowski movie and started believing in soi-fic gnosticism.

>>15491459
>Also: you do realize all mathematics so far (and in the future) is perfectly computable
Chaitin's constant
Q.E.D.

>>15493756
The guy that invented the computer, conrad zuse, unsurprisingly, was the first to figure it out back in the 60's. See pic. It's obvious.

>>15493767
>figure it out
kek!

>>15493767
To the man with only a hammer, every problem is a nail.

>>15491476
>Meds, now!
hold on now, i like the crayon munching discreticist(a bit ironic given how obnoxious he is) as much as you, but a computer was someone that computes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_(occupation)

>>15493756
Here is the entry on that. He had an automata theory, which ends up being not the correct model
but he is still the father of the idea. The one with the correct model ended up being NASA physicist tom campbell, who is the guy explaining the QM experiments in this post
>>15493722
and who co-authored this paper here
>>15493650
Look into it and you will be ahead of the pack on understanding physics.

>>15493722
>Every statement I have made is completely consistent with observed data with regards to quantum theory and in fact represents the only model with ultimate explanatory power.
Underdetermination is not evidence.
>You have no argument.
On the contrary, my argument was very plainly spelled out. 100% of all the evidence says "white goose", therefore the most reasonable inference is "the next goose is white". The next thing is likely to be like every other thing for the same reasons in spite of seeming randomness, ergo it is most likely to be stochastic like all the other things we've seen.

I had an actual argument. You have underdetermination. You're definitely right about not being a big smart guy when you can't even do basic bitch inference.

>>15491549
not him, but apparently yeah, they are enough of a thing for someone to generate a "gabor frame" over them, whatever the fuck that is
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/a:1021356503075

>>15493769
Yes. That's right. Another originator, the first one to figure out that the computer that computes the reality has to be 'outside' of the spacetime of the reality (non-local to the spacetime, ie 'outside' the universe) was edward fredkin. He called this non-physical or pre-physical non-local realm "other". It ends up being what tom campbell calls "the larger consciousness system". It's an intellegent mind which renders the reality to the individuated free-will awareness units of consciousness, which is what we are.

>>15493776
>Underdetermination is not evidence.
The model has explanatory power, such as with explaining non-locality/bells theorem and experimental verification thereof, why this things are as they are, see here
>>15493650
>Here, the simulation theory offers a very simple explanation for the violation of the principle of locality implied by Bell's no-go theorem, the EPR paradox, Bell's inequalities violation experiments 1, 3 and quantum entanglement: notions of locality and distance defined within the simulation do not constrain the action space of the system performing the simulation (i.e. from the perspective of the system performing the simulation, changing the values of variables of spins/particles separated by 1 meter or 1 light year has the same complexity).
and it doesn't multiply entities beyond like the many worlds model. It's the most parsimonious model.
>On the contrary, my argument was very plainly spelled out. 100% of all the evidence says "white goose", therefore the most reasonable inference is "the next goose is white". The next thing is likely to be like every other thing for the same reasons in spite of seeming randomness, ergo it is most likely to be stochastic like all the other things we've seen.
I am not arguing against a stochastic reality.
>I had an actual argument.
Nope. You appeal to an "if we only knew" hidden variables. type of thing. By the way, I am not arguing that particular things are not EFFECTIVELY deterministic from the perspective of the observer, ie such as the planets motion. The probability distribution on one cycle or frame to the next is as such that a random draw will will have a a result that the planets will just continue on there simulated continuous determined course. There would be so small non-zero probability that the draw could produce a result of the planet tunneling across the universe though.
A very dumbed down idealized vid on this. Watch it on 1.5
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMImjFYZ1iY

>>15493776
here
>>15493776
i should say the planets will continue on there APPARENT continuous couse. Of course there is no continuousness in the physical world, it is step-wise. It only seems that way because the refresh rate is so relatively fast, see pic.

>>15493806
>The model has explanatory power, such as with explaining non-locality/bells theorem and experimental verification thereof, why this things are as they are, see here
So does stochastic QM with the added fact it has actual evidence for it. Induction. We expect another white goose, not a fairy tale like you want.

>>15491404
If the universe is discrete the smallest unit would be Planck length or smaller.

You literally would not be able to tell the difference.

>>15491418
>i.e. you could possibly "construct" every position, but underlying description of universe is different and finite.
No you can't because entropy destroys information. There are multiple ambiguous pasts.

>>15491510
>Are you okay with natural numbers, finitist moron?
There are numbers so large you cannot represent them because there aren't enough particles in the universe to represent even the symbol for the number.

>>15493867
Name one such number.

>>15493901
2^1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

>>15493907
Looks like you just represented it without running short of particles in the universe.

>>15491404
aliasing presumes a higher resolution underlying image

>>15493814
I'm not a physicist but I don't think Plank length implies discreteness of the universe.
It's about limits of measurement's precision.

Let's say you have a small window - you could still cover a continuous space with it by simply shifting its position around.

>>15493867
Numbers are abstract.
Just because you can express them in notation doesn't mean they exist in any meaningful sense in the real world outside their notational representation.

Btw there is nothing "natural" about natural numbers.
1 or 2 aren't real physical objects.
1 apple or 2 apples are real physical object.

>>15494336
To continue:
Mathematics is descriptive.
It doesn't have creative power.
Just because you defined something mathematically doesn't mean it has real world physical equivalent.

>>15491404
Yes, minecraft is basically a good simulation of that.

>>15494336
Numbers aren't any more abstract than the apples. You may have a real physical apple, or you may talk about apples in general, just as you may have 2 of something, or you may be discussing 2s in general. The abstraction comes when you generalize.

>>15494464
you have to be 18+ to post on 4chan

>>15494334
>I'm not a physicist but I don't think Plank length implies discreteness of the universe.
>It's about limits of measurement's precision.
You are correct. Quite a lot of people get this wrong.