kiwi0fruit / ultimate-question Goto Github PK

The Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything

Please discuss everything related to the Ultimate Question here.

News concerning the research and discussion would appear in this GitHub discussion, subreddit r/DigitalPhilosophy and substack Digital Philosophy.

Main reddit discussions (contain copies from other sources as well) - lots of comments:

• reddit.com/r/compsci, backup (2018)
• reddit.com/r/DigitalPhilosophy, backup (2019)
• reddit.com/r/DigitalPhilosophy, backup (2020)

PS

If you feel like you want to add something to the article or to rewrite it - feel free to fork it on GitHub, edit and make a pull request.

more details

• https://stackoverflow.com/questions/12976424/how-to-remove-characters-from-a-font-file

• PHYS771 Lecture 9: Quantum (by Scott Aaronson): https://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec9.html

some info:

• more details
• If quantum speed-up is due to the wave-like nature of quantum mechanics, why not just use regular waves?
• https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/everything-list/2JeAMf_T-nM

Pay more attention to inanimate matter problem and stability of space and conservation laws. There may or may not be echoes of the basic laws right in them. Or they themselves can be basic (or they can be decomposed into a basic part applied to the evolved one). BVSR (blind variation with selective retention) without heredity can also be relevant in conjunction with the known laws of physics. It's necessary to explain without anthropic principle why everything so stable. And by the way, are there really no more worthwhile models of accumulation of novelty? Search for "theories of emergence".

Deleted

Base level can convert only a small amount of energy to small chunks of space (I don't know what this nonsense means). The next level can combine chunks from the previous level and hence get access to higher total energies (and more complex space structures).

• Inspect Self-referential basis of undecidable dynamics: from The Liar Paradox and The Halting Problem to The Edge of Chaos

May be some money would give me a bit of motivation? As I failed to inspire other people may be I should try to moitivate myself? But this way also needs other people activity...

• Get Patreon
• Write article with catching title
  • promise: write monthly reports about what I did together with amount of money received for the period of time. So that the sum and it's motivational impact could be used for amount of work estimation. + Find out the percent that would be taken by Patreon and taxes so that it is present in the reports.
  • promise: write to Patreon (if there is an option for access for all), to Reddit and to a blog (with RSS and crossposts to Twitter).

• Fix scroll bug,
• Experiment with self-hosting all Gitbook legacy toolchain.
• Check GitbookIO/theme-default#62 and GitbookIO/theme-default#57
• May be replace scroll to jumps
• If

  .book-body {
     overflow-y: visible;
  }
  

  then sepia and night get side white stripes.

Some simplified form like in a prisoners dilemma or even simpler. Or may be not and it' simply emergent anyway...

might be interested:

• Add ask for "I've got email but not interested" reply
• Scott Alexander
• Пол Кочер (криптограф с первым биологическим образованием)
• scottaaronson.com
• Juergen Schmidhuber
• !hurry! Gregory Chaitin, Metaphysics, Metamathematics and Metabiology
  • read https://arxiv.org/pdf/math/0404335.pdf
  • search for Chaitin's people
• Radosław Siedliński, Turing Machines and Evolution. A Critique of Gregory Chaitin’s Metabiology
• Artem Kaznatcheev, 1, 2, 3, u/DevFRus
• Forums:
  • [email protected]
  • [email protected]
  • [email protected]
  • [email protected]
  • [email protected]
• lukeprog https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FwiPfF8Woe5JrzqEu/philosophy-a-diseased-discipline http://commonsenseatheism.com/ Ask him if there's a place for metaphysical questions near lesswrong
• Write post on lesswrong.com?
• Check Smolin, Wolfram, Markopoulou co-authors
• Wei Dai https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/everything-list/Y5JNnpgXUaQ
• Sabine Hossenfelder @ (may be she knows somebody who can be interested?)
• somebody from Universal Darwinism
• researchers of the origin of life
• https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/everything-list (as Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality fits) @
• Alastair Channon (from a-life) @
• Ben Goertzel @
• Carson C. Chow (mathematician-biologist that likes to philosophize) @
• Roberto Mangabeira Unger @
• Nicolas Gisin (Николя Жизан) @
• supercalifragilisticexpialidocious UX hack
• Google "metaphysics lesswrong"
• Steven Wolfram
• Reddit
  • https://www.reddit.com/r/math/
  • https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/ (removed by r/philosophy)
  • https://www.reddit.com/r/Metaphysics/ (removed by r/Metaphysics)
  • https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicPhilosophy/ (removed by r/AcademicPhilosophy)
  • https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics/
  • https://www.reddit.com/r/TheoreticalPhysics/
  • https://www.reddit.com/r/evolution/
  • https://www.reddit.com/r/bioinformatics/ (removed by r/bioinformatics)
  • https://www.reddit.com/r/compsci/
  • https://www.reddit.com/r/oee/
• Physicists Are Misled by Outdated Notions of 'Beauty': https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/zmkvxa/physicists-are-misled-by-outdated-notions-of-beauty Comment there?
• NSU MMD?
• Fotini Markopoulou-Kalamara (haven't found email fast)
• somebody from "It from qubit"
• maybe again to Lee Smolin? Nope. I added too little to for it to make sense
• Straightforwardly write to PR department of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics (may be they know somebody who can be interested?)
• somebody from a-life (but neither to Tim Tyler nor to Alastair Channon)
• lovers of graphs? But how to find such a community?
• https://www.reddit.com/user/userdna46

mode details

• http://bactra.org/reviews/wolfram/ look for some ideas explorations

  "I could go over Wolfram's discussion of biological pattern formation, gravity, etc., etc., and give plenty of references to people who've had these ideas earlier. They have also had them better, in that they have been serious enough to work out their consequences, grasp their strengths and weaknesses, and refine or in some cases abandon them. That is, they have done science, where Wolfram has merely thought."

• https://www.quantamagazine.org/landmark-computer-science-proof-cascades-through-physics-and-math-20200304/

• https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics/comments/g17g4a/stephen_wolfram_i_never_expected_this_finally_we/

  The more interesting parts that stood out were the parts about causal invariance giving rise to a fixed relationship between the steps between states (time) and the relationship between components at each step (space), from which the relationships conform to relativity.

  He gives a definition of energy in terms of this model and says that special relativity, quantum mechanics and mass/energy equivalence all emerge as inherent properties of the model regardless of which “rules” are actually applied.

  If I understood correctly, special relativity, quantum mechanics, and mass/energy equivalence only fall out for rules that have "causal invariance", as a direct result of that property.

  I obviously haven't dedicated a ton of thought to this, but Wolfram's definition of time as "the successive application of rules" seems to be problematic as it seems either circular, or else external to the theory. The definition at the very least depends on having already defined time in order to make sense of what "successive" means. In the context of his theory, where everything is made up of this abstract hypergraph, its not clear to me how time arises from that if it the application of rules to this hypergraph.

  Successive application of update rules to some spacelike slice of vertices on a graph seems pretty clear when you look at it from the Hamiltonian formulation of General Relativity. Having glanced at Gorard's first paper, it seems not that dazzling to see that such a discrete formalism of spacetime could result in a more or less lorentzian structure, since Hamiltonian GR also does so in a somewhat hidden way. But then that also means that they may just have rediscovered numerical relativity. Maybe we'll see that when/if they bother to compute the higher order corrections. Just don't quote me on this, it's late and I barely managed to look through that one paper.

  The interpretation of energy and momentum from this is vague at best, as they can't even derive mass or energy. They're just drawing parallels based on how things transform, and that is not enough to make such bold claims. The technical papers pretty much handwave these parallels/analogies as if they were enough.

• https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22866284

• https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22871806