A true but useless theory of everything - Revision history

Apm: /* Related / '''Systematic listing of all possible programs'''

2023-06-11T08:53:38Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:53, 11 June 2023
Line 108:		Line 108:

	* '''[[The program of all programs (code)]]'''		* '''[[The program of all programs (code)]]'''
			* '''[[Systematic listing of all possible programs]]'''
	* '''[[Philosophical topics]]'''		* '''[[Philosophical topics]]'''
	* [[Big bang as spontaneous demixing event]]		* [[Big bang as spontaneous demixing event]]

Apm: /* Related / Simulation hypothesis

2023-06-10T22:22:37Z

Related: * Simulation hypothesis

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:22, 11 June 2023
Line 112:		Line 112:
	* [[Foundations of mathematics]]		* [[Foundations of mathematics]]
	* [[The limits and guesses in math]]		* [[The limits and guesses in math]]
			* [[Simulation hypothesis]]

	[[Category:Philosophical]]		[[Category:Philosophical]]

Apm: /* Related */ added The program of all programs (code)

2022-10-03T15:51:16Z

Related: added The program of all programs (code)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:51, 3 October 2022
Line 107:		Line 107:
	= Related =		= Related =

	* [[Philosophical topics]]		* '''[[The program of all programs (code)]]'''
			* '''[[Philosophical topics]]'''
	* [[Big bang as spontaneous demixing event]]		* [[Big bang as spontaneous demixing event]]
	* [[Foundations of mathematics]]		* [[Foundations of mathematics]]

Apm: added link to page: The program of all programs (code)

2022-10-03T10:10:51Z

added link to page: The program of all programs (code)

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:10, 3 October 2022
Line 1:		Line 1:
			[[The program of all programs (code)]]

	Or: "The program that executes all programs" <br>		Or: "The program that executes all programs" <br>

Apm: /* Constructing and executing the program that constructs and executes all logically possible programs */ lots of fixes

2022-10-03T07:55:37Z

Constructing and executing the program that constructs and executes all logically possible programs: lots of fixes

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:55, 3 October 2022
Line 49:		Line 49:
	= Constructing and executing the program that constructs and executes all logically possible programs =		= Constructing and executing the program that constructs and executes all logically possible programs =

	Lambda calculus is Turing complete.		'''Lambda calculus''' is Turing complete. <br>
	Ignoring evaluation strategies (just as we ignore computing inefficiencies) lambda calculus is extremely simple.		Ignoring evaluation strategies (just as we ignore computing inefficiencies) lambda calculus is extremely simple. <br>
	Just three sort of things combine into abstract syntax trees that can then be executed.		Just three sort of things combine into abstract syntax trees that can then be executed.

Line 60:		Line 60:
	To execute a to infinity growing list op programs in parallel one can		To execute a to infinity growing list op programs in parallel one can
	do do it in a Cantor diagonalization like fashion.		do do it in a Cantor diagonalization like fashion.
	After running one computation step on all ~~proggrams~~ that are running so ~~fare~~ run the first computation step on one more program.		After running one computation step on all programs that are running so far, run the first computation step on one more program.

	Do not get confused here. Despite mentioning Georg Cantors diagonalization here this has nothing to do with proving the existence of the uncountable infinite set of the real numbers. Intuitionistic and constructivistic mathematics has problems accepting as real such numbers that are not constructible by a finite amount of steps.		Do not get confused here. Despite mentioning Georg Cantors diagonalization here this has nothing to do with proving the existence of the uncountable infinite set of the real numbers. Intuitionistic and constructivistic mathematics has problems accepting as real/existent such numbers that are not constructible by any finite amount of steps.
	But that's a different story.		But that's a different story.

Line 68:		Line 68:
	* '''The execution of this program though is pretty much the very definition of inefficiency itself.'''		* '''The execution of this program though is pretty much the very definition of inefficiency itself.'''

	== Termination, nontermination in simple loops, nonperiodic nontermination, ~~uncecidable~~ termination ==		== Termination, nontermination in simple loops, nonperiodic nontermination, undecidable termination ==

	Some of the programs should terminate or fall into a repeating loop pretty quickly. <br>		Some (most) of the programs should terminate or fall into a repeating loop pretty quickly. <br>
	For the programs that do neither terminate nor fall in a clearly nonterminating repeating loop there is the question whether there is a general algorithm that can decide if that program will ever halt or will certainly never terminate without running the program. This question is ~~the~~ the "~~entscheidungsproblem~~" ~~in the formulation~~ of ~~the~~ "~~halting problem~~". It turned out (meaning it was proven) that there fundamentally cannot be such an algorithm.		For the programs that do neither terminate nor fall in a clearly nonterminating repeating pattern/loop there is the question whether there is a general algorithm that can decide if that program will ever halt or will certainly never terminate without running the program. This question is called the "halting problem" a case of an "entscheidungsproblem". It turned out (meaning it was proven by contradiction) that there fundamentally cannot be such an algorithm.

	Instead termination behavior of seemingly non-terminating and nonperiodic programs needs to be proven in a program-case by program-case (or programm-class by program-class) manner~~. For some programs with unclear termination properties is fundamentally non-provable whether they are terminating or non-terminating.~~		Instead termination behavior of seemingly non-terminating and nonperiodic programs
	~~(Violating the law of the excluded middle?) and thus these mysterious programs (in some sense) can be seen to be equivalent to new axioms~~.		needs to be proven in a program-case by program-case (or programm-class by program-class) manner.

	It looks like it won't terminate, we ~~can't prove~~ that it does not terminate~~, so~~ lets just say it won't terminate and go with it for now.		For some programs with unclear termination properties is fundamentally non-provable whether they are terminating or non-terminating.
	Yes, that is a deadly sin for math, but then again every axiom is a deadly sin for math and with zero axioms there would be no such thing as math to begin with.		The program corresponds to a provenly "uncecidable problem".(Violating the law of the excluded middle?)
	* ~~So the~~ core of math is a necessarily a deadly sin by its own judgement. Scary.		Thus these mysterious programs (if seemingly but provenly unprovable behaving some way) can (maybe) be seen to be equivalent to new potential axioms?
	* ~~So the~~ very deepest core of math is Faith, Magic, Lies, call it what you want.
	In the end it may all run down on practicability and how it matches our observed physical universe.		(Side-note: going into meta madness: What about provability of our proving capability on a particular program? ...)

	~~(Side-note – going meta: What about provability of our proving capability on a particular program?~~ .~~..)~~		It looks like it won't terminate and we are incapable of proving that it does not terminate.
			So lets just take a risk and say it won't terminate and go with it for now.
			Yes, that is a deadly sin for math, but then again every axiom is a deadly sin for math and with zero axioms there would be no such thing as math to begin with. All of math is built on what it deems deadly sins. Thus it strives to at least keep them as minimal in number as possible.

			* The innermost core of math is a necessarily a deadly sin by its own judgement. (Scary.)
			* The very deepest core of math is Faith, Magic, Lies, call it what you want.
			In the end it may all run down on practicability and how it matches our observed physical universe. <br>

			Still math is the most reliable and indisputable tool we have.

	= Is this even good for anything? =		= Is this even good for anything? =

Apm: all of headline hierarchy one level up

2022-10-03T06:10:37Z

all of headline hierarchy one level up

Apm: /* Simulation hypothesis as a consequence rather than as the cause */ TRNG PRNG

2022-10-03T06:08:08Z

Simulation hypothesis as a consequence rather than as the cause: TRNG PRNG

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:08, 3 October 2022
Line 32:		Line 32:
	Meaning:		Meaning:
	* (self deploying) computing-substrate, code, and initial conditions (all maximally compressed)		* (self deploying) computing-substrate, code, and initial conditions (all maximally compressed)
	* and just deterministic execution from there. <br>Deterministic execution (hyperdeterminism) seems at odds with truly random quantum randomness. Odds only resolvable when assuming global hidden variables in quantum mechanics. ~~Global~~ over very vast stretches of spacetime as cosmic Bell experiments show.		* and just deterministic execution from there. <br>Deterministic execution (hyperdeterminism) seems at odds with truly random quantum randomness ([[TRNG]]). <br>Odds only resolvable when assuming global hidden variables in quantum mechanics (making quantum randomess in effect an [[PRNG]]). <br>Globally hidden over very vast stretches of spacetime as cosmic Bell experiments show.

	'''Note:''' It may well be that the encoding of our whole universe in so incredible efficient that <br>		'''Note:''' It may well be that the encoding of our whole universe in so incredible efficient that <br>

Apm: /* Simulation hypothesis as a consequence rather than as the cause */ added a note on inconsistency with quantum randomness & some fixes

2022-10-03T06:05:30Z

Simulation hypothesis as a consequence rather than as the cause: added a note on inconsistency with quantum randomness & some fixes

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:05, 3 October 2022
Line 31:		Line 31:
	This speaks incredibly strongly for an ultra highly compressed/encoded form of the/a universe.		This speaks incredibly strongly for an ultra highly compressed/encoded form of the/a universe.
	Meaning:		Meaning:
	* (self deploying) computing-substrate, code, and initial conditions ~~and~~		* (self deploying) computing-substrate, code, and initial conditions (all maximally compressed)
	* just deterministic execution from there.		* and just deterministic execution from there. <br>Deterministic execution (hyperdeterminism) seems at odds with truly random quantum randomness. Odds only resolvable when assuming global hidden variables in quantum mechanics. Global over very vast stretches of spacetime as cosmic Bell experiments show.

	'''Note:''' It may well be that the encoding of our whole universe in so incredible efficient that <br>		'''Note:''' It may well be that the encoding of our whole universe in so incredible efficient that <br>
	it makes it much much likelier than the encoding of ~~the~~ experience ~~of a human lifetime~~ ([[Boltzmann brain]])		it makes it much much likelier than the encoding of human experience ([[Boltzmann brain]]).

	'''Presence of equivalence classes of simulations:''' <br>		'''Presence of equivalence classes of simulations:''' <br>
	For anything simulated there will be infinitely many other places in the "program of all programs" that		For anything simulated there will be infinitely many other places in the "program of all programs" that
	* execute the ~~very~~ same simulation or		* execute the exact same simulation or
	* execute a simulation similar enough to be perceptually indistinguishable from within.		* execute a simulation similar enough to be perceptually indistinguishable from within.
	'''Note:''' Simulation to arbitrary accuracy means that for all sentient intelligent entities in there, <br>		'''Note:''' Simulation to arbitrary accuracy means that for all sentient intelligent entities in there, <br>

Apm: /* Claim/Conjecture: Turing completeness allows for simulating all possible universes */ fixed remaining inconsistency regarding simulation hypothesis

2022-10-03T05:56:51Z

Claim/Conjecture: Turing completeness allows for simulating all possible universes: fixed remaining inconsistency regarding simulation hypothesis

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:56, 3 October 2022
Line 5:		Line 5:
	== Claim/Conjecture: Turing completeness allows for simulating all possible universes ==		== Claim/Conjecture: Turing completeness allows for simulating all possible universes ==

	Turing completeness allows for all possible programs and,		Turing completeness allows for all possible programs and, <br>
	given one ~~takes~~ the [[simulation hypothesis]] ~~seriously~~,		given one interprets the [[simulation hypothesis]] in a non-mainstream way as a consequence rather than a cause, <br>
	allows for simulation of all possible universes.		then '''turing completeness allows for simulation of all possible universes'''.

	As for all we know today a Turing complete machine can compute all of what is in principle computable. So by ...		As for all we know today a Turing complete machine can compute all of what is in principle computable. So by ...

Apm: /* Claim: Turing completeness allows for simulating all possible universes */ reformulation + added section === Simulation hypothesis as a consequence rather than as the cause ===

2022-10-03T05:51:31Z

Claim: Turing completeness allows for simulating all possible universes: reformulation + added section === Simulation hypothesis as a consequence rather than as the cause ===

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 Or: "The program that constructs and executes in parallel all programs that are constructible"
-== Claim: Turing completeness allows for simulating all possible universes ==
+== Claim/Conjecture: Turing completeness allows for simulating all possible universes ==
 Turing completeness allows for all possible programs and,
 given one takes the [[simulation hypothesis]] seriously,
 allows for simulation of all possible universes.
 == Constructing and executing the program that constructs and executes all logically possible programs ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:10, 3 October 2022
Line 3:		Line 3:
	Or: "The program that constructs and executes in parallel all programs that are constructible"		Or: "The program that constructs and executes in parallel all programs that are constructible"

	== Claim/Conjecture: Turing completeness allows for simulating all possible universes ==		= Claim/Conjecture: Turing completeness allows for simulating all possible universes =

	Turing completeness allows for all possible programs and, <br>		Turing completeness allows for all possible programs and, <br>
Line 20:		Line 20:
	* computing inefficiency and the uber-astronomical scale of the task.		* computing inefficiency and the uber-astronomical scale of the task.

	=== Simulation hypothesis as a consequence rather than as the cause ===		== Simulation hypothesis as a consequence rather than as the cause ==

	There is no need to assume one of the classical forms of the [[simulation hypothesis]] here because:		There is no need to assume one of the classical forms of the [[simulation hypothesis]] here because:
Line 26:		Line 26:
	* Presence of equivalence classes of simulations		* Presence of equivalence classes of simulations

	~~'''~~Simulations as a consequence of spontaneous de-mixing~~:''' <br>~~		=== Simulations as a consequence of spontaneous de-mixing ===

	When assuming the [[big bang as spontaneous demixing event]] <br>		When assuming the [[big bang as spontaneous demixing event]] <br>
	then every single bit more of encoding in the/a universe makes it half as likely. <br>		then every single bit more of encoding in the/a universe makes it half as likely. <br>
Line 37:		Line 38:
	it makes it much much likelier than the encoding of human experience ([[Boltzmann brain]]).		it makes it much much likelier than the encoding of human experience ([[Boltzmann brain]]).

	~~'''~~Presence of equivalence classes of simulations~~:''' <br>~~		=== Presence of equivalence classes of simulations ===

	For anything simulated there will be infinitely many other places in the "program of all programs" that		For anything simulated there will be infinitely many other places in the "program of all programs" that
	* execute the exact same simulation or		* execute the exact same simulation or
Line 45:		Line 47:
	An equivalence class of simulations.		An equivalence class of simulations.

	== Constructing and executing the program that constructs and executes all logically possible programs ==		= Constructing and executing the program that constructs and executes all logically possible programs =

	Lambda calculus is Turing complete.		Lambda calculus is Turing complete.
Line 66:		Line 68:
	* '''The execution of this program though is pretty much the very definition of inefficiency itself.'''		* '''The execution of this program though is pretty much the very definition of inefficiency itself.'''

	=== Termination, nontermination in simple loops, nonperiodic nontermination, uncecidable termination ===		== Termination, nontermination in simple loops, nonperiodic nontermination, uncecidable termination ==

	Some of the programs should terminate or fall into a repeating loop pretty quickly. <br>		Some of the programs should terminate or fall into a repeating loop pretty quickly. <br>
Line 82:		Line 84:
	(Side-note – going meta: What about provability of our proving capability on a particular program? ...)		(Side-note – going meta: What about provability of our proving capability on a particular program? ...)

	== Is this even good for anything? ==		= Is this even good for anything? =

	=== Art as an eventual application case ===		== Art as an eventual application case ==

	Fractals are pretty. Programs that neither terminate nor get into a clearly nonterminating repetitive loop are often of fractal nature.		Fractals are pretty. Programs that neither terminate nor get into a clearly nonterminating repetitive loop are often of fractal nature.
Line 94:		Line 96:
	* This program of all program is pretty much "the very definition of inefficiency". <br>Almost all of these programs do nothing or almost noting.		* This program of all program is pretty much "the very definition of inefficiency". <br>Almost all of these programs do nothing or almost noting.

	== Related ==		= Related =

	* [[Philosophical topics]]		* [[Philosophical topics]]
Line 103:		Line 105:
	[[Category:Philosophical]]		[[Category:Philosophical]]

	=== Nonterminating nonperiodic programs ===		== Nonterminating nonperiodic programs ==

	An interesting clearly non-terminating non-periodic programs is the algorithm that generates the square-root of two in binary.		An interesting clearly non-terminating non-periodic programs is the algorithm that generates the square-root of two in binary.
Line 114:		Line 116:
	But we are already in higher math concepts here much more specific than general computation that falls out from the program of all programs described above.		But we are already in higher math concepts here much more specific than general computation that falls out from the program of all programs described above.

	=== Fractals ===		== Fractals ==

	How do these relate to the program of all programs?		How do these relate to the program of all programs?
	* Penrose tiling – a non-periodic non-terminating structure		* Penrose tiling – a non-periodic non-terminating structure
	* Mandelbrot set		* Mandelbrot set