RE: Informationalism 101 - Quantum Suicide... Squad?
Is it going to be about stuff by Claude Shannon? If yes, than we have a cool synchronicity. Couple of days ago I stumbled upon an article about his work, and decided to read up on it, and maybe even write a post of my own about him. Facinating guy, and real cool stuff he did. Also underappreciated, a lot like Tesla, and it was right after I've read that post by @stellabelle, that I stumbled upon him.
Also, now that I've read the article in its entirety (not really, but mostly), it just lacks a link to that 1 minute time machine sketch! Mentioning it in this comment is probably a spoiler! A quantum spoiler! :-D
Also, I don't understand why the universes would be comming into existance? Perhaps they are already there. It depends on how the time works. Or rather spacetime. I know that what I am talking about doesn't have any scientific basis behind it. At least not to my knowledge. Can you suggest reading something on that topic (other than your blog ;-), that is)?
Yes Shannon is a good place to start reading. His books are all open. Also Stephen Wolframs a new kind of science is another great place to read it's also available to read online. Plus Wolfram has a ton of lectures online.
The Quantum Suicide Squad is just a 101 introduction to the core postulates of informationalism. Which is a set of tools for debunking QW/QBS But this isn't some sort of new theory. It's primarily looking at the universe as something which fundamentally computes, but is not a simulation.
Because if the universe is a simulation then There's all kinds of code exploits, buffer overflows etc.
Nevertheless the universe is clearly not deterministic but I think we will find there is nothing random about it either. Consider looking closely at Wolframs interpretation of cellular automata. Pay close attention to where he is able to derive a Feynman diagram and also a Turing machine. An informational telescope is another good postulate. Pretty much anything by him is great stuff!
Your theory about a frozen I.e. preexisting multiverse is identical to several actual theories with some actual weight behind them. However none of these make any testable predictions that I am aware of. Until they do that puts them more in the category of philosophy than science.
What makes a theory a theory is that you can test it and there is someway it can be disproven.
Im not sure why Wolfram's latest book has not received such good amazon reviews
I wouldn't say it is frozen. Or rather it is, but not for the 'mind', 'observer', or what have you.
And yeah, that is why I said there is no scientific basis behind them, because scientific method is about testing stuff and refining models.
I remember talking with some guys after a Nurse with Wound concert about difference between random and chaotic (or somesuch), thing is if something is random there are quite good models for describing it, and you can make good predicitons for random stuff.
The Universe is atemporal, nothingness is an illusion, a mere abstraction of our minds.
I can say the following: "Existance is an illusion. Nothingness is all that is. If the word is is even applicable to this whole thing." At least that is what the kabbalah (however it is spelled) is all about. ;-)
When you say everything, you actually also mean nothing, and vice versa.