The universe is a number

[eighth man]

Has anyone ever thought of describing the universe

as just a large set of numbers. For example a universe

with 1 particle and 2 positions and 2 time intervals

would be described as a table:

 

Particle Time Position

 

0 1 0

0 2 1

 

This universe only lasts 2 time steps and has one

particle. Extrapolating to a real universe with a

about 1000 physical measurements and 200 decimal

precision for each for 10 to the 500 particles etc.

we could get (10 to the power of 1000) numbers;

Or in rearranging the numbers a universe that is a

number with (10 to the power of 1000) decimal places.

 

By the way all possible universes would be :

 

10 to the power of (10 to the power of 1000))

 

or 10^(10^1000).

 

Physical laws would be just extracted regularity from

all these numbers by deliming areas and relating

areas of numbers.

 

The universe in this picture is just one large number

chopped up in various ways to related various areas

of regularity.

 

Strange idea but interesting ......

 

Any comments ?

[Severian]

On one level this is a good idea, but on another a really bad one.

 

It is good, because this is exactly what we are doing when we use mathematics to describe physics. We seek to mathemetically describe everything in the universe.

 

It is bad, because your theory would be very non-predictive and inelegant. By describing the universe in this way we gain nothing. What we want to do is have some mathematical laws which tell us how to 'work out' what your numbers should be. In your setup, if you have all the numbers except the last one, you cannot predict what it is - you have to measure it. If you have a law, then you would be able to predict that number, and test it with experiment.

[Thales]

If quantum mechanics is correct and the universe does contain a truly fundamental 'bit' of information then yes, the universe can be desribed as a number. A very large number could describe the universe as it stands at some snapshot in time. However, such is the case with any raw binary, its relevence is limited to the mathematics you choose to interpret it with. As severian rightly points our, the mathematics we use are chosen for us by the laws of physics. So while it would be useful to know the universes overall state at any point in time without solid physical principles to meaningfully relate and interpret the data it becomes largely useless.

 

One of the finer points of this method is related to information/matter/energy conservation. If we know how much of each is floating around out there it would help alot with our theorising. The problem is of course, the universe is a really big place and counting all those digits may take longer than the age of the universe itself.

[eighth man]

Yes you are both right. But what I'm doing is something

more abstract.

 

God is a number. This number is 10^10^10^3.

 

A 2 hour dvd contains 10^10 numbers. There are

therefore 10^10^10 possible films ever.

I'm doing the same with the universe considering

every concievable measurement at 10 to the minus

100 seconds and meters for all the universe for

all of time etc. (if you need more precision just

put it to 10^4 etc)

 

Therefore a number with 10 to the 10th power

to the 10th power to 3 comes out. If we line

up the numbers its, still just about that big.

 

Try to abstract more. A person in one of these

universes is a group of numbers. All laws are only

groupings of numbers relative to others.

 

There is no magic anymore in mathematics like

physics thinks because a given universe has some

numbers organized according to a regularity like

1/r^2. It's just one of the combinations.

It's quite abstract ....

[Thales]

Abstract enough to be far from the realm of physical reality. While I understand your premise I don't think the arbitrary selection of the numbers you've choosen to justify your reasoning are helping convince me of anything other than the universe being really really big. I didn't need any numbers to tell you that.

[eighth man]

I'm trying to get at 2 points here:

 

1) it's strange that physics thinks that math is

magic; after all the 3 body problems are all

really hard , high temp superconductivity is

hard, turbulence is hard etc. So maybe we

perceive magic in some basic formulas because

they casually end up corresponding to reality

sometimes.

 

2) If the "it from bit" thing is true , then this theory

of mine is relevant, and a good simulation on

computer is real just as matter and where is the

limits at that point ? We can simulate new physics

particles whatever and it is reality ...

[Severian]

Your 'model' would imply that there should be no pattern to the universe because a single number in your sequence is not derivable from the others. We know this to be wrong - we can predict physical processes and thus (some of) your numbers. In other words, all of the manifest numbers in the sequence are not independent. It the job of physics to determine what these dependences are and exploit them.

[eighth man]

Right. We extract a pattern because it is useful.

The concept of pattern is an invention of the mind.

Groups of numbers are just groups of numbers.

In fact there are probably a huge number of

partial patterns and associations that can be

seen as other kinds of particles, forces, interactions

(you can invent as much as you want)

and world views (universes).

[eighth man]

I think I can focus the ideas better. If you

let a program run that draws on a small

screen and cycles through all the combinations,

then sometimes something like a face will come

out. It is just one of the many combinations.

(like the monkey who ends up writing a novel

after typing for trillion of years etc).

 

Same idea is for the universe as a number.

It looks as if there is cause and effect, laws and

so on , but it is just one of the combinations.

We are fooled into thinking there are explanations

when it is only an illusion.

 

 

here.

[eighth man]

The theory can be concluded like this.

A given group of numbers creates the effect

of consciousness. We are only those patterns

of numbers that generate consiousness.

 

So there you go, the Grand Unified theory

of physics is achieved. You only have two

objects: 1) a large number 2) consciousness

and one cause and effect 3) a given set

of numbers creates consciousness. It is

like a scalar field where a given set creates

our sensation of consciousness. If a theory

then has only one explanation, then it is

just an association, a table associating numbers

with an effect.

 

Some consequences of this is that the universe

confirms extreme determinisms; in fact it

would seem that there is no free will and we

are kind of like zombies executing a fixed

program. Another consequence is that anything

can occur and it is automatically explained

by being just a combination of numbers:

a big blue sphere can appear out of nowhere

and it needs no explanation because we are

in a sequence of numbers where that corresponding

combination is. It is also true that there could

be some combination of numbers that create effects

we don't know.

 

This theory is non falsifiable, that is no

experiment can demonstrate that it is false.

In this respect it is like theories that say

"The world is a simulation in a computer of

a higher civilization having completely different

physics" or that "Everything is in our mind and

there is no outside world" etc.

 

So I should be getting the nobel prize and theoretical

physics is out of work.