What Is Ultimately Possible in Physics?

cromulent · on Nov 1, 2009

Some of the other essays in the competition are worth a look.

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/category/31416

chrischen · on Nov 1, 2009

Hey thanks for the link. I actually read one other article about the ultimate velocity and whether or not it exists. http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/548

I left a comment (by Chris C.) about his interpretation of time, but having never finished a class on relativity (yet), I'm hoping some physicist can examine my comment because I seriously did pull most of my conjectures out of my butt while I was writing it. But it makes sense based on what I knew.

jackchristopher · on Nov 2, 2009

And here are the rest of Wolfram's writing for reference: http://www.stephenwolfram.com/publications/recent/

motters · on Nov 1, 2009

Wolfram seems to reference himself a lot.

ced · on Nov 2, 2009

Oy, he's writing an essay on some of the ideas in his book, NKS. Of course, he'll refer the interested reader to the relevant chapters.

I thought it was well written; it delves deep on the "universe as a giant Turing Machine" perspective.

mitko · on Nov 1, 2009

Corrolary 1: We can never prove that we are not in the Matrix.

human_v2 · on Nov 2, 2009

We lack sufficient evidence to prove that we reside in a Matrix-like construct. Pending evidence, we shall continue believing that we do not live in such a construct.... though the line between physical reality and virtual reality become blurrier every day.

gnaritas · on Nov 2, 2009

> We lack sufficient evidence to prove that we reside in a Matrix-like construct.

I'm not sure we even have sufficient evidence to suggest it, let alone prove it.

glymor · on Nov 2, 2009

Have a look at the Simulation Argument http://www.simulation-argument.com/.

Crude synopsis: if it is possible to create such an simulation then the probability that we in one is the number of possible simulated universes (v. large) vs the number of real universes (1) ie high probability that we are within a simulation.

rosser · on Nov 2, 2009

I've always heard that expressed as the Simulation Paradox: either full-fidelity simulations, a la The Matrix, are impossible, or we're already in one.

gloob · on Nov 2, 2009

How is that paradoxical?

mitko · on Nov 2, 2009

yes, we cannot prove that we are in a Matrix either.

And... everybody has the right to believe whatever he/she likes as long as the induced behavior is not harmful to others.

human_v2 · on Nov 2, 2009

What is possible? Everything. It just depends on what level we are able to effectively manipulate the universe. Suppose for a moment that the universe is comprised of 'bits' at the very smallest possible scales. We do not currently have direct (root) access to these bits, so we must manipulate them from within the system. Because our universe is NP-complete, given enough control over these universal bits, anything that is thinkable is possible. Will we ever be able to control these bits? It remains to be seen, but I should think so eventually.

ars · on Nov 2, 2009

You should actually read the article.

And, please look up NP-complete, because I don't think you know what it means (as opposed to just NP).

nostrademons · on Nov 2, 2009

If the universe is NP-complete, then P = NP.

Proof: universe = 42 (Adams 1978). 42 can be computed in O(1) time. Therefore, universe is in P. If one problem in the set of NP-complete problems is in P, they are all in P. Therefore, P = NP.