Before you go, check out these stories!

Hackernoon logoRe: George Hotz, Simulation Theory, Stephen Wolfram, "God and Dice" by@TheLoneroFoundation

Re: George Hotz, Simulation Theory, Stephen Wolfram, "God and Dice"

Author profile picture

@TheLoneroFoundationAndrew Magdy Kamal

When asked about the universe, its origin, and life in general, what comes to mind? The answer has fathomed scientist, theologians, philosophers and man for decades. I can go from the philosophical standpoint of being like, I am a Copt, here is what I believe. You and me, could go back and forth discussing what is truth, and all that. However, this isn't the point of this post. I want to look at the question of, "a universal theorem of everything". The whole universe and how it is tied in general is that of a physics standpoint. We are at the dawn of age of exploration really, and still mankind has a question on what unifies nature itself.

Let us first look into simulation theory. Now, in short Simulation Theory dictates that we are all part of a simulation or "living in a simulation". Imagine the video game Sims 3, but this is the reality. If that is the case, so far I want a refund, but all jokes aside, there are multiple problems with this reasoning.

  1. The universe as we see it is infinitely expanding, meaning technological capabilities are becoming statistically improbable.
  2. If supposed simulation makes the universe simulatable enough for the illusion of it constantly expanding then this is still statistically improbable
  3. To simulate a single biological system would take computational power that doesn't exist technologically in our planet today. This includes consciousness and all that.
  4. The computational power of a simulation would likely require a computer much bigger then the sun, our own galaxy, etc., technology improbable to exist, and a series of paradoxes.
  5. Given the mathematical nature of all things, simulation theory seems less capable of being both regressional and consistent.

Now that being said, serious people are considering simulation theory. George Hotz wants to dictate a "church for us to escape the simulation", while even Elon Musk is a huge proponent of simulation theory. Now don't get me wrong, I think George Hotz is pretty cool. He is actually likely one of the good guys in tech. However, not sure the physics would be in his favor. That is fine, I can be a George Hotz fan and not like simulation theory. That being said, besides the five points I gave, I have other reasons of my disgruntledness with simulation theory.

The fact that a universe can be simulated but people have consciousness and free will makes no sense from a philosophical standpoint. If we are free willed beings, and the universe is supposed to be simulated as of a video game, what would be the point? Why would a super intelligent species capable of annihilating each other want to offload currently impossible computational power to simulate something just for the sake of it? If life isn't just a video game after all, I would doubt us humans are that entertaining to a civilization that far off advanced.

Now for some reason simulation theory made me inclined to discuss a different topic that is sort of related. I wanted to question fellow intellectual Scott Adams on his views of pandeism. Now don't get me wrong, I like his blog, he is a great comic, no disrespect there. Also, I'm not questioning his views on being right or wrong. He stated himself, "The description of reality in Godโ€™s Debris isnโ€™t true, as far as I know, but itโ€™s oddly compelling." It is a thought experiment, not meant to be taken seriously as far as I understand. Think of Mensa meetings. That being said, in my mind it isn't a scientifically useful thought experiment because:

  1. It is a hypothetical paradox not beneficial to the physicist's quest of understand the universe's origin.
  2. It doesn't answer any big questions

From an exploratory perspective, I see where he is coming from if you look at raw entertainment value. However, still it reminds me of philosophers discussing things just for the sake of discussion. It is meant to be thought provoking and entertaining at best, but for someone as serious as me, I rather sit discussing the errors of simulation theory w/ George Hotz if given the chance.

Speaking of understanding the universe, an interesting perspective may be from someone such as Stephen Wolfram. Now if you don't know who Stephen Wolfram is, you probably aren't in the fields of distributed computing or Theoretical Physics. He is the creator of Wolfram|Alpha, which besides being used by anxious students trying to find answers to common equations, is one of the most advanced forms of natural language understanding and computationally-driven data processing. Wolfram also created his own multi-paradigm computational language centered around functional programming and statistical computing.

Now the reason I bring Stephen Wolfram up in this discussion, is he is working on a project known as the Wolfram Physics Project. This is a project aimed at trying to find a fundamental theory of physics. Now basically what he is trying do is apply relational elements into hypergraphs. This means sequences and vertices (In Laymann's terms) to dimensional elements or graphical representations of structures representing aspects of nature, time and the universe. Besides the fancy looking UML diagrams, he actually goes into quite great detail.

He looks at causal relationships, hierarchical rules, and deeply related patterns. Essentially, he is trying to establish a certain mathematical code for things, and represent various aspects of space, classical mechanics, quantum physics, and nature. It is basically the establishment of a programming language that can represent all these aspects of the universe the physicist are looking for. Eventually, he seems like he wants to find an underlining rule of everything. This is something I also am trying to do w/ a similar approach.

Now before getting into my full thoughts, I wanted to quote the late Prof. Hawking on something, "Thus it seems that even God is bound by the Uncertainty Principle, and can not know both the position, and the speed, of a particle. So God does play dice with the universe".

Hawking was referencing Einstein's famous lines that, "God doesn't play with dice in the universe" and responding to it. Hawking is also a profilic atheist who believes that the concept of God and physics can't go hand in hand. Philosophically, I would disagree with the notion that God would have to be bound by the laws of physics.

If something existed before the origin point of the universe and time itself, logically it doesn't have to be bound to said creation. Therefore, it is illogical that something existing before the universe's origin point has to be bound by the laws of said universe.

That being said, it is interesting the the Uncertainty Principle has been brought up. In an unpopular opinion post I done on Reddit, I talked about the concept of, "All of Nature and the Universe can be represented by a single Mathematical Equation". I said directly in my post,

We are all mathematical code and the "same said pattern" is just at randomized frequencies. Imagine if after the origin point of the universe, a continuous mathematical code found in everything was just reoccurring and said code literally is just the holy grail of all what Quantum physicist been searching for. An actual theory of everything that is just described by a single derived mathematical equation. This is still considered less of a popular opinion then is should be, as many physicist don't think we are there where you can manifest everything with just one equation."

Now in response to someone questioning the uncertainty principle in relation to a unified theory of everything, I stated,

If you are able to statistically represent particle positions and momentum as randomized frequencies then you should be able to derive a way to figure out electron position and velocity to high degree of accuracy.

That being said, even if you weren't able to do a statistical representation, you can still find a way to model them as variables in said equation.

Now that we went over this discussion, I wanted to discuss my proposition of things and of the universe.

I have talked about some sort of origin point of the universe. Part of this view is that the universe follows some sort of systematic pattern, and is almost like "code" in the universe. This lead me to three different proposals:

Proposal #1: QSOPR Theorem: Quantum Similarity Origin Point References

The view that DNA and biological life has an algorithmic design, among with the view of the mathematical representations regarding Quantum similarity, object set references, computational proof theory, and complexity algorithms leads to the introduction of Quantum Similarity Origin Point References or QSOPR Theorem in general.

Proposal #2: MDQBT: Multi-Dimensional Quantum Breakpoint Theorem

In this paper, I will derive the equation X=O+ฮฃ H +( n (log)ฮฆ/P d x for the representation of our universe under the origin point and dilation of time, t. This theorem will be one of the biggest of our understanding of the universe and what Quantum Origin as well as Quantum States symbolizes in terms of mathematically representing the universe as we know it. Following the same rational and logic with Quantum Similarity we have a much bigger picture of the mathematical framework that our "universes" is under. This will henceforth be one of the main papers in a series of others that explains our universe through Quantum physics and infinitely expanding loops and ripples in time.

Proposal #3: QSICT: Quantum Simulated Informational Consciousness Theory

In response to Dr. Giulio Tononiโ€™s Integrated Information Theory and both supporting and contradicting some points made on Teleological Evolution in relation to Christopher Michael Langan, comes a different explanation on the universe and a unified idea of consciousness in relation to Quantum Information. My idea is that the principles of Quantum Similarity applies to the neural wiring of our brains and many stimuli based decisions are following a characteristic pattern that can be mathematically represented under a certain mechanical system. Under this, all self-evident or replicated actions of the universe arenโ€™t the universe in essence replicating itself, but rather a continuation of the symbolic nature of all patterns. Next let us dive into the human subconscious (which is separate from the conscious of the brain). The subconscious also follows systematic patterns in its decision making, but the patterns are randomized and dependent on the stimuli reaction. Evidently all human decision making follows a cognitive Kantianism-style nature and all purely animalistic decisions are evident of statistical outliers that still follow patternistic natures. This explains consciousness in terms of Quantum Information, Quantum Similarity, and provide a slightly more differing point to the โ€œHard Problem of Consciousnessโ€.

Now the above three proposals are derived from a post I made earlier on Minds, and I have a full eBook here on Google Play as well as the PDF, and a Udemy. That being said, there are tons of thorough evidence that suggest code in the universe or some underlining theorem of everything.

Infact, something still baffling scientist are mathematical codes in the universe as discussed here, or when Tyson infamously freaked out seeing error correcting codes in the universe as seen here. Now this is less in support of simulation theory and more in support of an origin point of the universe and the idea that nature can eventually be bound by a unified equation or perhaps even a category of unified equations that follow the same systematic pattern.

Outside of this, I am looking to modeling Quantum Similarity, not in relation to molecular structures, but how the same principles can be tied to said patterns and equations in various different aspects of nature. This is something that is a stretch goal of mine, that I hope I can derive eventual computational power to do. It also lead to a joke by a fellow colleague saying, "Trying to mathematically prove God is one thing, but I am pretty sure at this point God just wants to be left alone", and it reminds of the, "God does not play with dice" comment and the late Prof. Hawking's, "God does play with dice" response.

That being said, I think eventually humanity is getting closer to answering the big questions. We are deriving computational breakthroughs that will answer beyond many things that have baffled man over and over. It may be both exciting and scary what the future will hold or what is set out to be entirely proven.

If you enjoyed this post, I suggest you check out my physics reading list, follow me on Academia, Google Scholar, Minds, or check out my Decentralized-Internet SDK. As always, I am also on OpenCollective.


Become a Hackolyte

Level up your reading game by joining Hacker Noon now!