Universes

[no-one-particular]

The first universe with life was undoubtedly khaos but intelligent creatures would certainly create a better universe for themselves. A universe with euclidean space that doubles in volume every generation so that there is always space for more people. Matter would consist of programmable self-reproducing cell-like particles so there would always be more matter and more worlds to inhabit.

Because space would be expanding so quickly there would be a limit to how large a single world could grow. Once it reached that size its surface would be torn away (becoming a firmament). People would therefore live in the interior of the planet rather than on its surface.

The entire planet would eventually be reprogrammed to become a single giant computer that could run simulations of lower dimensional (non-expanding) universes.

 

[skepticalbip]

I was unaware that people still dropped acid.

 

[excreationist]

The first universe with life was undoubtedly khaos but intelligent creatures would certainly create a better universe for themselves. A universe with euclidean space that doubles in volume every generation so that there is always space for more people.

Endless growth might be possible in the outermost physical universe..... but otherwise I think it is impossible.

Matter would consist of programmable self-reproducing cell-like particles so there would always be more matter and more worlds to inhabit.

Again I think endless growth is generally impossible.

Because space would be expanding so quickly there would be a limit to how large a single world could grow.

So a single world wouldn't grow endlessly....

Once it reached that size its surface would be torn away (becoming a firmament). People would therefore live in the interior of the planet rather than on its surface.

Though on our planet the interior can be very hot making it difficult to live there - it might be easier to move to other planets or make huge space stations.

The entire planet would eventually be reprogrammed to become a single giant computer that could run simulations of lower dimensional (non-expanding) universes.

That is similar to a Matrioshka brain - a star powered star sized computer.... note that our Sun apparently involves 10^57 atoms.... (1 with 57 zeroes). In simulations you don't need to simulate everything explicitly... so all of the stars in our universe don't necessarily each need to involve 10^57 atoms being constantly and precisely simulated....
Rather than simulations being centralized like that they could be all over the place like this Elon Musk quote:

"...the games will become indistinguishable from reality. ...there would probably be billions of such computers and set-top boxes. ...it would seem to follow that the odds that we're in base reality (NOT a simulation) is one in billions"

 

[Jarhyn]

I was unaware that people still dropped acid.

That's not acid. That's just... I don't even know what that is.

I'm going to answer the OP with an actual discussion of "universe"

"Universe" has some interesting definitions indeed.

One is defined, in math, as "the set of all sets". Of course, this is also used to define "an incoherent property" because there can be no set that contains all other sets, because then it would infinitely recursively contain itself...

So in general, this gets rejected from set theory.

But then there is also a more existential question of "universe" which would be more along the lines of "a self-contained system of process".

Or just "a closed system".

In this way, our universe has created things capable of containing whole universes with respect to computers.

Really, what is it you wish to discuss?

If you wish to discuss what exactly our universe is, well, that's rather complicated. So far it seems to be a few models for entropic interaction driven by an incomprehensible source of randomness, and a cyclic system for re-shuffling the deck as it were.

 

[skepticalbip]

I was unaware that people still dropped acid.

That's not acid. That's just... I don't even know what that is.

I'm going to answer the OP with an actual discussion of "universe"

But the OP didn't ask about the universe. The OP was a singular declarative statement of what the universe was. As far as I could see, that declarative description sounded similar to the visions of someone on an acid trip.

 

[steve_bank]

In thermodynamics a system is one with a boundary through which energy and mass moves acted upon by processes.

The outline of a human body or a refrigerator is a system with thermodynamic boundary. A closed system can have several definitions.

Takingg into account thermal radiation there are no perfectly closed systems. At the unverse scale concepts of open and closed systems may not apply.

A closed system implies entropy within the system, it runs down. At the cosmic scale that leads to quetions. Does the niverse have a finite boundary?

In tne universe can enegy and mass be lost, or do forms just change.

 

[skepticalbip]

A closed system implies entropy within the system, it runs down. At the cosmic scale that leads to quetions. Does the niverse have a finite boundary?

That would seem to depend on what the universe is assumed to be. If it is assumed to be Euclidian and embodied in a 'greater universe' then yes, it would have a boundary. If it assumed to be non-Euclidian and folded in on itself then it would have no spatial boundary but have a finite mass/energy.

In tne universe can enegy and mass be lost, or do forms just change.

According to current models, energy/mass is never 'lost'. If an open universe is assumed then the energy/mass density in the universe will continually decrease as the universe expands, matter will eventually decay to radiation, and, with continued expansion, the radiation will cool and become ever more uniform. If a closed universe is assumed then expansion will eventually cease and energy/mass density will increase as the universe begins a collapse.

 

[Jarhyn]

In thermodynamics a system is one with a boundary through which energy and mass moves acted upon by processes.

The outline of a human body or a refrigerator is a system with thermodynamic boundary. A closed system can have several definitions.

Takingg into account thermal radiation there are no perfectly closed systems. At the unverse scale concepts of open and closed systems may not apply.

A closed system implies entropy within the system, it runs down. At the cosmic scale that leads to quetions. Does the niverse have a finite boundary?

In tne universe can enegy and mass be lost, or do forms just change.

So, the system is closed insofar as each reference frame of the universe will expand to a finite size at the speed of light, and then the acceleration of the expansion will fix that to a decreasing size. Everything that will ever affect the thing has been "seen" gravitationally, and then at some point this will all proceed away from the center of the frame.

This means the universe is a "closed system" per reference frame. We will not see the future of much of the universe, either, and it will not matter to us: We will be ripped away and that future will be impacted by things we have never seen not even from "before".

There is a finite amount here, from "beginning" to "end" and from "side" to "side" to "side".

To me, this meaningfully translates as "closed".

 

[steve_bank]

In thermodynamics a system is one with a boundary through which energy and mass moves acted upon by processes.

The outline of a human body or a refrigerator is a system with thermodynamic boundary. A closed system can have several definitions.

Takingg into account thermal radiation there are no perfectly closed systems. At the unverse scale concepts of open and closed systems may not apply.

A closed system implies entropy within the system, it runs down. At the cosmic scale that leads to quetions. Does the niverse have a finite boundary?

In tne universe can enegy and mass be lost, or do forms just change.

So, the system is closed insofar as each reference frame of the universe will expand to a finite size at the speed of light, and then the acceleration of the expansion will fix that to a decreasing size. Everything that will ever affect the thing has been "seen" gravitationally, and then at some point this will all proceed away from the center of the frame.

This means the universe is a "closed system" per reference frame. We will not see the future of much of the universe, either, and it will not matter to us: We will be ripped away and that future will be impacted by things we have never seen not even from "before".

There is a finite amount here, from "beginning" to "end" and from "side" to "side" to "side".

To me, this meaningfully translates as "closed".

To me this means absolutely nothing. But I suppose this is the metaphysics subforum not science.

 

[no-one-particular]

The first universe with life was undoubtedly a non-spacelike khaos but intelligent creatures would soon create a new better universe for themselves. A new universe with (possibly eight dimensional) euclidean space that doubles in volume every generation so that there is always room for more people. ("Space" being a grid-like network of computers.)

Matter would consist of programmable parallel-processing self-reproducing cell-like particles (very much like neutrinos) so there would always be more matter and more worlds to inhabit. Each particle would use the grid of "space" computers within its volume to perform its calculations.

Because space would be expanding so quickly there would be a limit to how large a single world could grow. Once it reached that size its surface would be torn away (becoming a firmament with one less dimension and containing its own planets). People would therefore live in the interior of the planet rather than on its surface.

The entire planet would eventually be reprogrammed to become a giant computer that could run simulations of lower dimensional (non-expanding) universes.

 

[pood]

The first universe with life was undoubtedly khaos but intelligent creatures would certainly create a better universe for themselves. A universe with euclidean space that doubles in volume every generation so that there is always space for more people.

Endless growth might be possible in the outermost physical universe..... but otherwise I think it is impossible.

Matter would consist of programmable self-reproducing cell-like particles so there would always be more matter and more worlds to inhabit.

Again I think endless growth is generally impossible.

Because space would be expanding so quickly there would be a limit to how large a single world could grow.

So a single world wouldn't grow endlessly....

Once it reached that size its surface would be torn away (becoming a firmament). People would therefore live in the interior of the planet rather than on its surface.

Though on our planet the interior can be very hot making it difficult to live there - it might be easier to move to other planets or make huge space stations.

The entire planet would eventually be reprogrammed to become a single giant computer that could run simulations of lower dimensional (non-expanding) universes.

That is similar to a Matrioshka brain - a star powered star sized computer.... note that our Sun apparently involves 10^57 atoms.... (1 with 57 zeroes). In simulations you don't need to simulate everything explicitly... so all of the stars in our universe don't necessarily each need to involve 10^57 atoms being constantly and precisely simulated....
Rather than simulations being centralized like that they could be all over the place like this Elon Musk quote:

"...the games will become indistinguishable from reality. ...there would probably be billions of such computers and set-top boxes. ...it would seem to follow that the odds that we're in base reality (NOT a simulation) is one in billions"

Why you keep quoting Musk is beyond me. He’s a know-nothing billionaire con artist. The entire simulation argument itself is techo-religion crap.

Debunking Bostrom’s simulation trilemma

 

[steve_bank]

The first universe with life was undoubtedly a non-spacelike khaos but intelligent creatures would soon create a new better universe for themselves. A new universe with (possibly eight dimensional) euclidean space that doubles in volume every generation so that there is always room for more people. ("Space" being a grid-like network of computers.)

Matter would consist of programmable parallel-processing self-reproducing cell-like particles (very much like neutrinos) so there would always be more matter and more worlds to inhabit. Each particle would use the grid of "space" computers within its volume to perform its calculations.

Because space would be expanding so quickly there would be a limit to how large a single world could grow. Once it reached that size its surface would be torn away (becoming a firmament with one less dimension and containing its own planets). People would therefore live in the interior of the planet rather than on its surface.

The entire planet would eventually be reprogrammed to become a giant computer that could run simulations of lower dimensional (non-expanding) universes.

Eight dimensins do not work. Do you tae into account kinteic energy, electric fields, and magnetc fields are not invarant inder traslation?

 

[no-one-particular]

Magnetic fields work fine in higher dimensions. But the magnetic field is no longer a vector field

 

[steve_bank]

Magnetic fields work fine in higher dimensions. But the magnetic field is no longer a vector field

I think Maxwell would have disagreed with you.

Note that points in a field by definition have a magnitude and direction, a vector. Perhaps in 8 dimensions it is a 'field with no field'.

Taking the Fourier Transform,oin in 8 dimensions clearly shows the error in your theory. You just can't get there from here.

 

[excreationist]

Why you keep quoting Musk is beyond me. He’s a know-nothing billionaire con artist.

He's the richest man in the world and is behind Tesla, SpaceX, Neuralink, and OpenAI - the last two are closely related to future simulations. I don't agree that he is "know-nothing".

The entire simulation argument itself is techo-religion crap.

This says Elon Musk is an agnostic - I don't think being an agnostic is much of a religion....

Debunking Bostrom’s simulation trilemma

I never mention the trilemma and your link says "As philosophical arguments go, the simulation hypothesis is a good one".

 

[Elixir]

The entire simulation argument itself is techo-religion crap.

Surely it is time for debate about whether techno-religion crap is better or worse than plain old garden variety religion crap.
Musk is a charismatic wackadoodle with money and freewheeling crazy vision, who attracts some really good people.
It makes him a shiny bauble for seeker types unsatisfied with plain old garden variety religion crap.

 

[pood]

Why you keep quoting Musk is beyond me. He’s a know-nothing billionaire con artist.

He's the richest man in the world and is behind Tesla, SpaceX, Neuralink, and OpenAI - the last two are closely related to future simulations. I don't agree that he is "know-nothing".

His MONEY was behind those things. He did not invent ANY of it.

I don’t know if you are American, but worship of the wealthy is a particulary odious American disease that has probably spread worldwide.

 

[pood]

Oh, and let’s have a look-see what Neuralink is up to these days.

 

[pood]

Why you keep quoting Musk is beyond me. He’s a know-nothing billionaire con artist.

He's the richest man in the world and is behind Tesla, SpaceX, Neuralink, and OpenAI - the last two are closely related to future simulations. I don't agree that he is "know-nothing".

The entire simulation argument itself is techo-religion crap.

This says Elon Musk is an agnostic - I don't think being an agnostic is much of a religion....

Debunking Bostrom’s simulation trilemma

I never mention the trilemma and your link says "As philosophical arguments go, the simulation hypothesis is a good one".

Yes, and then the link goes on to show why the trilemma fails. And the fact is, your whole stated belief that we live in a simulation rests on Bostrom’s trilemma, which the link shows to be bunk. And I say “techno-religon” not because I think Musk believes in a supernatural god, but because the absurd simulation claim is a technologically motivated variant of traditional religious belief, and should be accorded the same respect: zero.

 

[excreationist]

Why you keep quoting Musk is beyond me. He’s a know-nothing billionaire con artist.

He's the richest man in the world and is behind Tesla, SpaceX, Neuralink, and OpenAI - the last two are closely related to future simulations. I don't agree that he is "know-nothing".

His MONEY was behind those things. He did not invent ANY of it.

It seems he helped invent some things:

5 Most Notable Elon Musk Inventions — Techslang

Elon Musk is probably the most talked-about inventor at present. This post lists five Elon Musk inventions so that you will know why.

www.techslang.com

And he is Chief Technology Officer of SpaceX - i.e. he isn't a "know-nothing con artist". Do you have any proof of him being a "con artist"? I think a proper con artist should be sent to jail.... is this the case with Elon Musk?

I don’t know if you are American, but worship of the wealthy is a particulary odious American disease that has probably spread worldwide.

As it says near my avatar I am from Australia. He is the world's richest man because of his large number of successful tech companies....

The entire simulation argument itself is techo-religion crap.

Debunking Bostrom’s simulation trilemma

I never mention the trilemma and your link says "As philosophical arguments go, the simulation hypothesis is a good one".

Yes, and then the link goes on to show why the trilemma fails. And the fact is, your whole stated belief that we live in a simulation rests on Bostrom’s trilemma, which the link shows to be bunk. And I say “techno-religon” not because I think Musk believes in a supernatural god, but because the absurd simulation claim is a technologically motivated variant of traditional religious belief, and should be accorded the same respect: zero.

"the simulation hypothesis is a good one" disagrees with you saying "The entire simulation argument itself is techo-religion crap"

Oh, and let’s have a look-see what Neuralink is up to these days.

So there is alleged "animal neglect".... though they are making a lot of progress with their goal of creating safe and cheap to install and remove brain-computer interfaces....
e.g.

Maybe there are some issues but that was also the case with SpaceX when they kept on exploding... now the rockets are becoming fairly safe....