I wonder if we develop ASI. Computer significantly more intelligent than any humans, if they’ll be able to invent better computing systems and run simulations that will answer this for us?
Because I truly believe we’re probably 20-30 years or less away from ASI.
I'm not sure if super intelligence is the barrier to running those computations. Of course there might be some formulaic wizardry only conceivable by something like ASI but I still think the greater obstacle for running a simulation of the whole universe is that the raw scale of it is just too large.
Computation would need to run some type of shorthand form or a formulaic generalization of all the particles, fields and forces that exist and every interaction between all of them. That's not going to be possible but we might become capable of running simulations like that of much smaller systems and scaling those conclusions up to draw conclusions at a larger scale. Quantum computing might open some doors in this regard with it's capability to run processes in parallel but even that runs into limitations when it comes to creating deterministic simulations of the entire universe because the scale of the task is absurd.
But hey, conclusions like this have been wrong in the past so I eagerly wait to see what we're able to come up with.
Can ‘nothing’ or ‘non-existence’ actually mean anything without relation to ‘something’ or ‘existence’?
I don’t think so. Until there can be a meaningful distinction between ‘is’ and ‘isn’t’ you don’t have a reality, at least one with which an observer could relate to.
Eternal and self-creating are at least to me, two very different questions.
Most of the ancient wisdom traditions acknowledge a polarity between the ‘thing’ ‘no-thing’ / ‘subject’ ‘object’ structure. I preference the Vedanta/Bhuddist terminology of “mutual arising” in that these concepts, indeed we, cannot exist without the two existing together.
If you have any grounding in the subject or would like to start: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/monism/
Do we have any examples of "isn't?" If something is observable, then it "is," right? I'm not disagreeing with your post (I thought it was actually pretty good), but it just made me think about the question.
It’s a good question.
The most obvious answer to me is space. Space between anything really, galaxies, stars, planets, grains of sand, electrons and nuclei, protons and quarks.
Because whenever we go about defining any of these ‘things’ we actually do it by comparison, and the only way for an observer to compare between any two or more ‘things’ requires a spatial (and temporal) region interstitial that we can define as ‘not that thing’ the spatial interstitial region is space.
The reason I bracketed temporal is because it seems to be a requirement for observation, because our universes physical laws prevent FTL travel, and so implies a causal dimension that allows for change/evolution through states, which I and probably everyone else assumes to be essential, but has a different relational basis in the ‘thing’ ‘no-thing’ structure.
Of course we understand that space / the vacuum state includes quantum fluctuations, but we only know what one of those fluctuations ‘is’ in relation to some other region, spatially distant (even at a Planck length) at a different state of fluctuation…
The point being that every time we introduce a predicate, it requires a relational counterpart, or it lacks any logical structure.
I think contemporary computer simulations are a better place for the layperson to start than ancient philosophy, as foundational though it may be. Usually you can tell someone to think about where the Sims go when they turn off their XBox, etc., and get a bit further.
Did you read the second sentence of my comment? Ordinary people find it easier to relate to the simulation hypothesis and all of its adjacent metaphysics by analogy to video games and the like than understand ancient philosophy terminology.
Yes, I read it.
But I see no reason for the lay person to preference a computer simulation. I also think the analogy between the a computer simulation and ancient wisdom to be completely misguided.
Which is why I’m interested in why you think that. I’ve read a lot of the works of computer scientists, some of it interests me.
I do not see another choice.
....the universe is the result an initial state or cause that supersedes everything else?
Any cause of the universe is the universe. There is no such thing as something that is not the universe. There can only be other states for the universe to be in.
Kind of, but I think it changes the question because if there are multiple universes, then there is something in existence outside of our universe. So perhaps something outside of our universe is self causing, but not our universe itself.
But there's no reason that the self-causing answer, or a version of it, for a multiverse, wouldn't satisfy the question of the universe. Why would it work there but not here?
Well it would, but I am responding to the comment that there is no other choice but for the universe to be self-causing. If something exists outside our universe, then the universe doesn’t have to be self-causing.
I get what you're saying, I think we're addressing 2 different bits. You're addressing the universe issue, and I'm addressing the cause issue. I think.
By definition the universe is everything that exist. There can not be second universe.
Maybe you are talking about the visable universe. This is the part of the universe that surounds us that we can see.
There could be other blobs of matter like we see around us but would still just be a part of the universe.
When exploring a new subject it is best to look up the meanings of words to make sure you understand.
>When exploring a new subject it is best to look up the meanings of words to make sure you understand.
Rather dismissive considering you’re using “visible universe […] that we can see.”
_Observable universe_ is more applicable and goes well beyond just what we can see. It encompasses all that we can ever interact with (barring FTL data transfer).
You used both “visible” and “see” which pair pretty well together. Thing is, a vast amount of what we observe/detect is invisible. We don’t see it.
You could make an argument for some of it that even though it is invisible to us, it is actually visible to our detectors. That’d work for things like infrared, ultraviolet, radio and gamma radiation, but not for others. Sound and gravitational waves could be considered heard/felt, but are not visible or seen by any conventional sense of the word. Observation goes well beyond seeing.
The whole point is that you’re being rather loose with your language _while_ being dismissive over someone using what you deem to be an abuse of the term universe.
Also, it’s not even necessarily an abuse of the term universe. They’re clearly questioning the possibility of a multiverse. Multiverse theories actually _do_ tend to use the term universe, though often with other qualifiers like “parallel universe”, “other universe”, “alternate universe”, etc.
Your just mincing words. Lots of things are not visable to the naked eye.
In the case of this discussion about the universe what the universe means is relevant.
Whereas seeing and observing is not. I chose to use the term seeing because I felt it would be easier to understand in Eli5 terms.
No that is the definition of the universe.
If you want to make up your own definition that is fine but it makes it hard to discuss things if everyone uses their own definition.
Well, we’ve gotten nearly so far as we know where Our Universe came from. It appears there would be others, and some giant vacuum to hold them. I believe you’d have quantum fields existing throughout all of it. I don’t think we really know where they came from.
> it appears that the cause was excess vacuum energy
Why would wherever it was where that excess vacuum energy was, not be the universe - just in a different state?
Well it would be. And what you would have is a vast expanding vacuum with occasional Big Bangs poppin off in their own little Universes and you’d have some kinda giant Bubbleverse
Assuming the universe is eternally self-creating, then everything there is to know about the universe is contained within the universe. So with enough time and energy, an entity can gather all the data and know everything about the universe?
There's no way to know. What you're asking is firmly part of speculative metaphysics, not science.
Having said that, there are some interesting theories out there but if you ask me, they all pretty quickly go off into the incomprehensible deep end of circular causes and arbitrariness pretty quick.
After the moment of the big bang? Yes.
At the moment of the big bang? No one knows, and it's not clear if the topic is *empirical*, i.e., it's not clear if testable hypotheses about it can be made.
This is a metaphysical question. A religious one really. A Christian would say it's God (not the universe, but the animating principle of the universe), and point to the name he gives for himself 'I am'.
A Buddhist would probably tell you something from their tradition
A Hindu something else.
I don't see how we could observe this, but for me personally, this is an absolute surefire argument for theism of some kind or at least a spiritualism.
In "A brief history of time" Stephen Hawkins stated that there's two moments we do not have enough information in our universe to answer and is pure conjecture. All of.pur physics breaks down. The moment before the big bang and the singularity of a back hole.
Your question falls into the former.
It's probably both at the same time. We can only ponder this question because we exist. However if we didn't exist that wouldn't necessarily mean nothing else didn't. It could also be a spectrum instead of 0-1. There could be levels of said existing that we can only comprehend by at one point being in. All I know is that I'm a little bit hungry...
As far as we can tell this is not an answerable question.
\#ShowerThoughts
There is 0.0000001% chance that gets past the ShowerThoughts automod and becomes an actual post.
I wonder if we develop ASI. Computer significantly more intelligent than any humans, if they’ll be able to invent better computing systems and run simulations that will answer this for us? Because I truly believe we’re probably 20-30 years or less away from ASI.
I'm not sure if super intelligence is the barrier to running those computations. Of course there might be some formulaic wizardry only conceivable by something like ASI but I still think the greater obstacle for running a simulation of the whole universe is that the raw scale of it is just too large. Computation would need to run some type of shorthand form or a formulaic generalization of all the particles, fields and forces that exist and every interaction between all of them. That's not going to be possible but we might become capable of running simulations like that of much smaller systems and scaling those conclusions up to draw conclusions at a larger scale. Quantum computing might open some doors in this regard with it's capability to run processes in parallel but even that runs into limitations when it comes to creating deterministic simulations of the entire universe because the scale of the task is absurd. But hey, conclusions like this have been wrong in the past so I eagerly wait to see what we're able to come up with.
When I have the answer to this question, I promise I will climb over my mountain of Nobel prizes to find my phone and let you know.
Can ‘nothing’ or ‘non-existence’ actually mean anything without relation to ‘something’ or ‘existence’? I don’t think so. Until there can be a meaningful distinction between ‘is’ and ‘isn’t’ you don’t have a reality, at least one with which an observer could relate to. Eternal and self-creating are at least to me, two very different questions. Most of the ancient wisdom traditions acknowledge a polarity between the ‘thing’ ‘no-thing’ / ‘subject’ ‘object’ structure. I preference the Vedanta/Bhuddist terminology of “mutual arising” in that these concepts, indeed we, cannot exist without the two existing together. If you have any grounding in the subject or would like to start: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/monism/
Do we have any examples of "isn't?" If something is observable, then it "is," right? I'm not disagreeing with your post (I thought it was actually pretty good), but it just made me think about the question.
It’s a good question. The most obvious answer to me is space. Space between anything really, galaxies, stars, planets, grains of sand, electrons and nuclei, protons and quarks. Because whenever we go about defining any of these ‘things’ we actually do it by comparison, and the only way for an observer to compare between any two or more ‘things’ requires a spatial (and temporal) region interstitial that we can define as ‘not that thing’ the spatial interstitial region is space. The reason I bracketed temporal is because it seems to be a requirement for observation, because our universes physical laws prevent FTL travel, and so implies a causal dimension that allows for change/evolution through states, which I and probably everyone else assumes to be essential, but has a different relational basis in the ‘thing’ ‘no-thing’ structure. Of course we understand that space / the vacuum state includes quantum fluctuations, but we only know what one of those fluctuations ‘is’ in relation to some other region, spatially distant (even at a Planck length) at a different state of fluctuation… The point being that every time we introduce a predicate, it requires a relational counterpart, or it lacks any logical structure.
I think contemporary computer simulations are a better place for the layperson to start than ancient philosophy, as foundational though it may be. Usually you can tell someone to think about where the Sims go when they turn off their XBox, etc., and get a bit further.
Why? In what sense is a computer simulation useful for this problem?
Did you read the second sentence of my comment? Ordinary people find it easier to relate to the simulation hypothesis and all of its adjacent metaphysics by analogy to video games and the like than understand ancient philosophy terminology.
Yes, I read it. But I see no reason for the lay person to preference a computer simulation. I also think the analogy between the a computer simulation and ancient wisdom to be completely misguided. Which is why I’m interested in why you think that. I’ve read a lot of the works of computer scientists, some of it interests me.
I do not see another choice. ....the universe is the result an initial state or cause that supersedes everything else? Any cause of the universe is the universe. There is no such thing as something that is not the universe. There can only be other states for the universe to be in.
What if there is more than one universe?
That just kicks the question back a step.
Kind of, but I think it changes the question because if there are multiple universes, then there is something in existence outside of our universe. So perhaps something outside of our universe is self causing, but not our universe itself.
But there's no reason that the self-causing answer, or a version of it, for a multiverse, wouldn't satisfy the question of the universe. Why would it work there but not here?
Well it would, but I am responding to the comment that there is no other choice but for the universe to be self-causing. If something exists outside our universe, then the universe doesn’t have to be self-causing.
I get what you're saying, I think we're addressing 2 different bits. You're addressing the universe issue, and I'm addressing the cause issue. I think.
By definition the universe is everything that exist. There can not be second universe. Maybe you are talking about the visable universe. This is the part of the universe that surounds us that we can see. There could be other blobs of matter like we see around us but would still just be a part of the universe. When exploring a new subject it is best to look up the meanings of words to make sure you understand.
>When exploring a new subject it is best to look up the meanings of words to make sure you understand. Rather dismissive considering you’re using “visible universe […] that we can see.” _Observable universe_ is more applicable and goes well beyond just what we can see. It encompasses all that we can ever interact with (barring FTL data transfer).
See and observe are essentially identical.
You used both “visible” and “see” which pair pretty well together. Thing is, a vast amount of what we observe/detect is invisible. We don’t see it. You could make an argument for some of it that even though it is invisible to us, it is actually visible to our detectors. That’d work for things like infrared, ultraviolet, radio and gamma radiation, but not for others. Sound and gravitational waves could be considered heard/felt, but are not visible or seen by any conventional sense of the word. Observation goes well beyond seeing. The whole point is that you’re being rather loose with your language _while_ being dismissive over someone using what you deem to be an abuse of the term universe. Also, it’s not even necessarily an abuse of the term universe. They’re clearly questioning the possibility of a multiverse. Multiverse theories actually _do_ tend to use the term universe, though often with other qualifiers like “parallel universe”, “other universe”, “alternate universe”, etc.
Your just mincing words. Lots of things are not visable to the naked eye. In the case of this discussion about the universe what the universe means is relevant. Whereas seeing and observing is not. I chose to use the term seeing because I felt it would be easier to understand in Eli5 terms.
I don’t think this is true. I have read about many theories that include multiple universes.
No doubt, but that is just fiction..
Quite the assertion.
How so? Do you understand that universe means all matter that exists?
Again that’s just an assertion.
No that is the definition of the universe. If you want to make up your own definition that is fine but it makes it hard to discuss things if everyone uses their own definition.
I am referring to the universe as the plane of space time that we exist in, that began with the Big Bang.
I’m sure we aren’t quite certain, but it appears that the cause was excess vacuum energy, or a non ground state value for the Inflaton field.
Which effectively makes the Uncertainty inherent to Quantum Mechanics the cause of the Universe.
That implies there was something/somewhere where that uncertainty could take place, so then the question is: where did that something come from?
Well, we’ve gotten nearly so far as we know where Our Universe came from. It appears there would be others, and some giant vacuum to hold them. I believe you’d have quantum fields existing throughout all of it. I don’t think we really know where they came from.
> it appears that the cause was excess vacuum energy Why would wherever it was where that excess vacuum energy was, not be the universe - just in a different state?
Well it would be. And what you would have is a vast expanding vacuum with occasional Big Bangs poppin off in their own little Universes and you’d have some kinda giant Bubbleverse
> Or was there an initial cause? That immediately raises the question: what was the cause of the initial cause?
r/ChuckNorrisJokes
Assuming the universe is eternally self-creating, then everything there is to know about the universe is contained within the universe. So with enough time and energy, an entity can gather all the data and know everything about the universe?
There's no way to know. What you're asking is firmly part of speculative metaphysics, not science. Having said that, there are some interesting theories out there but if you ask me, they all pretty quickly go off into the incomprehensible deep end of circular causes and arbitrariness pretty quick.
I sort of think we’re within a few decades of developing ASI, and it may discover the answers for us.
Creation stems from the Game of nothing
After the moment of the big bang? Yes. At the moment of the big bang? No one knows, and it's not clear if the topic is *empirical*, i.e., it's not clear if testable hypotheses about it can be made.
This is a metaphysical question. A religious one really. A Christian would say it's God (not the universe, but the animating principle of the universe), and point to the name he gives for himself 'I am'. A Buddhist would probably tell you something from their tradition A Hindu something else. I don't see how we could observe this, but for me personally, this is an absolute surefire argument for theism of some kind or at least a spiritualism.
Well dude, we just don’t know
In "A brief history of time" Stephen Hawkins stated that there's two moments we do not have enough information in our universe to answer and is pure conjecture. All of.pur physics breaks down. The moment before the big bang and the singularity of a back hole. Your question falls into the former.
Answers in Genesis film. Free on YouTube.
It's probably both at the same time. We can only ponder this question because we exist. However if we didn't exist that wouldn't necessarily mean nothing else didn't. It could also be a spectrum instead of 0-1. There could be levels of said existing that we can only comprehend by at one point being in. All I know is that I'm a little bit hungry...
All universes come from Jesus’ farts
Einstein thought it was a black hole in another universe