Big bang as spontaneous demixing event - Revision history

Apm: /* Borderlessness without infinity */

2018-06-10T07:08:05Z

Borderlessness without infinity

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:08, 10 June 2018
Line 42:		Line 42:
	And quantum mechanics gets the more active the better one isolates an experiment.		And quantum mechanics gets the more active the better one isolates an experiment.

	So if one contemplates to apply quantum mechanics (that two contradictory things can be true at the same time) to universal scales then one can think of the far outskirts of the universe (far beyond our visibility horizon) as areas where all possible universes "exist" placeless and timeless jumbled up into - what shall we call it - the multiverse (?) - the heat death (?) - the (???).		So if one contemplates to apply quantum mechanics (that two contradictory things can be genuinely true at the same time) to universal scales then one can think of the far outskirts of the universe (far beyond our visibility horizon) as areas where all possible universes "exist" placeless and timeless jumbled up into - what shall we call it - the multiverse (?) - the heat death (?) - the (???).

	In short this thought is about something remotely like quantum superposition at the scale of the whole (unobservable) universe caused by high quality isolation from the light-cone.		In short this thought is about something remotely like quantum superposition at the scale of the whole (unobservable) universe caused by high quality isolation from the light-cone.

Apm: /* The big bang was not a point - clearing a common misconception */

2018-06-10T07:06:07Z

The big bang was not a point - clearing a common misconception

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:06, 10 June 2018
Line 25:		Line 25:
	Probably a better picture for the big bang is a full-blown border-less universe ...		Probably a better picture for the big bang is a full-blown border-less universe ...
	(not flat - not 4D space-time - more like high dimensional string theory and beyond)		(not flat - not 4D space-time - more like high dimensional string theory and beyond)
	filled to the brim with "big-bangium".		filled to the brim with "big-bangium". Whatever that is.

	== Outside the horizon ==		== Outside the horizon ==

Apm: /* Consequence */ todo -> wikitodo

2017-10-30T19:40:44Z

Consequence: todo -> wikitodo

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:40, 30 October 2017
Line 99:		Line 99:
	One may imagine to plot a graph with "universe demixing complexity" on the x-axis and "consciously perceived time in these universes" at the y-axis.		One may imagine to plot a graph with "universe demixing complexity" on the x-axis and "consciously perceived time in these universes" at the y-axis.
	Integrating/summing over that infinite distribution gives a finite probability of 1 (normed - an infinite but convergent sum).		Integrating/summing over that infinite distribution gives a finite probability of 1 (normed - an infinite but convergent sum).
	{{~~todo~~\|maybe add some fantasy graphs}}		{{wikitodo\|maybe add some fantasy graphs}}

	Our universe loves minimalism. It is low dimensional in space (3D) => two eyed life forms. It has a minimal number of stable elements ~100 which is not more than necessary. Judging from that one might suspect that this distribution has a sharp peak at the bare minimum complexity that is just sufficient for the emergence of "life".		Our universe loves minimalism. It is low dimensional in space (3D) => two eyed life forms. It has a minimal number of stable elements ~100 which is not more than necessary. Judging from that one might suspect that this distribution has a sharp peak at the bare minimum complexity that is just sufficient for the emergence of "life".

Apm: /* Misc */ APM off-topic speculation: Gödel to physics

2017-09-29T05:17:08Z

Misc: APM off-topic speculation: Gödel to physics

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:17, 29 September 2017
Line 109:		Line 109:
	== Misc ==		== Misc ==

	While there are much more universes with deeper entropy dips (more bits more combinations) they occur much more rarely.		* While there are much more universes with deeper entropy dips (more bits more combinations) they occur much more rarely. There needs to be some convergent infinite sum.
	There needs to be some convergent infinite sum.

	Our universe seems to have a rather minimal entropy dip (3 spacial dimensions; ~100 chemical elements).		* Our universe seems to have a rather minimal entropy dip (3 spacial dimensions; ~100 chemical elements).

			* Maybe "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathemathics in the Natural Sciences" is limited to only the "areas" of the multiverse with sufficient dips in entropy? Do the areas where entropy dips are too small then allow Gödels incompleteness theorem from math to find a correspondence in physics? Such that (not yet known) physics can be just as fundamental as math? But the farther one goes to the from our perspective three borders of the universe in space-time (large scale past, large scale future, small scale timelessness) the more general the models become. How would this go together?

	== Related ==		== Related ==

Apm: /* Consequence */

2017-09-28T14:22:22Z

Consequence

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:22, 28 September 2017
Line 100:		Line 100:
	Integrating/summing over that infinite distribution gives a finite probability of 1 (normed - an infinite but convergent sum).		Integrating/summing over that infinite distribution gives a finite probability of 1 (normed - an infinite but convergent sum).
	{{todo\|maybe add some fantasy graphs}}		{{todo\|maybe add some fantasy graphs}}
	~~Judging from the~~ minimalism ~~of our universe (~~low dimensional in space (3D) => two eyed life forms; number of stable elements not more than necessary) one might suspect that this distribution has a sharp peak at the bare minimum complexity that is just sufficient for the emergence of "life".
			Our universe loves minimalism. It is low dimensional in space (3D) => two eyed life forms. It has a minimal number of stable elements ~100 which is not more than necessary. Judging from that one might suspect that this distribution has a sharp peak at the bare minimum complexity that is just sufficient for the emergence of "life".

	== Evade the unavoidable? ==		== Evade the unavoidable? ==

Apm: /* Evade the unavoidable? */ added useless nonsense

2017-09-28T14:18:03Z

Evade the unavoidable?: added useless nonsense

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:18, 28 September 2017
Line 104:		Line 104:
	== Evade the unavoidable? ==		== Evade the unavoidable? ==

	* Is fighting thermal death theoretically possible? - universe ~~really closed~~ system? - QM measurements fixate not yet defined amount of demixing?		* Is fighting thermal death theoretically possible?<br> It is known that the order in which quantum measurements are taken can influence the outcome. Is the amount of available demixing of the universe maybe still largely undefined (superposed). (Probably not – more superposition more entropy. There should be a clear association of entopy to quantum system stat - to check.) If so can quantum measurements fixate not yet defined amount of demixing? If so can one maximize entropy reduction by choosing an ideal measurement sequence?

	== Misc ==		== Misc ==

Apm: /* Consequence */ lots of cleanup

2017-09-28T14:00:59Z

Consequence: lots of cleanup

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:00, 28 September 2017
Line 95:		Line 95:

	Demixing is extremely costly (every additional demixed degree of freedom halves the "probability of existence") so it seems more than a bit likely that		Demixing is extremely costly (every additional demixed degree of freedom halves the "probability of existence") so it seems more than a bit likely that
	most universes (including ours) ~~did~~ just spent the very bare minimum amount of demixing ~~to create to allow~~ information processing conscious entities ~~to be~~ possible ~~(simple~~ universes strongly preferred - fine tuning).		most life bearing universes (including ours) do just spent the very bare minimum amount of demixing such that information processing conscious entities become possible. Simple universes are strongly preferred. (Related: fine tuning, Occam's razor)

	One may imagine to plot a graph with "universe demixing complexity" on the x-axis and "consciously perceived time in these universes" at the y-axis.		One may imagine to plot a graph with "universe demixing complexity" on the x-axis and "consciously perceived time in these universes" at the y-axis.
	Integrating/summing over that infinite distribution gives a finite probability of 1 (normed - an infinite but convergent sum).		Integrating/summing over that infinite distribution gives a finite probability of 1 (normed - an infinite but convergent sum).
	{{todo\|maybe add some fantasy graphs}}		{{todo\|maybe add some fantasy graphs}}
	Judging from the minimalism of our universe (low dimensional in space (3D) => two eyed life forms; number of stable elements not more than necessary) one might suspect that this distribution has a sharp peak at the bare minimum complexity for "life".		Judging from the minimalism of our universe (low dimensional in space (3D) => two eyed life forms; number of stable elements not more than necessary) one might suspect that this distribution has a sharp peak at the bare minimum complexity that is just sufficient for the emergence of "life".

	== Evade the unavoidable? ==		== Evade the unavoidable? ==

Apm: /* Lack of information-processing time-perceiving observers makes time "nonexistent" */

2017-09-28T13:55:04Z

Lack of information-processing time-perceiving observers makes time "nonexistent"

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:55, 28 September 2017
Line 89:		Line 89:
	We can only observe those parts of the universal "evolution" where the laws allow information processing entities like us to exist.		We can only observe those parts of the universal "evolution" where the laws allow information processing entities like us to exist.
	This is also related to what happens before birth and after death of information processing conscious entities like me and you.		This is also related to what happens before birth and after death of information processing conscious entities like me and you.
	And why we stay we. Or do we ?		And why we stay we when we wake up the next day or after a not to severe concussion. Or do we?
	* [[Continuity of perception]]		* [[Continuity of perception]]

Apm: /* Lack of information-processing time-perceiving observers makes time "nonexistent" */ is -> when

2017-09-28T13:51:33Z

Lack of information-processing time-perceiving observers makes time "nonexistent": is -> when

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:51, 28 September 2017
Line 74:		Line 74:
	== Lack of information-processing time-perceiving observers makes time "nonexistent" ==		== Lack of information-processing time-perceiving observers makes time "nonexistent" ==

	So why seriously considering a spontaneous demixing event as the explanation for the big bang is recurrence times are mindboggling uber astronomical?		So why seriously considering a spontaneous demixing event as the explanation for the big bang when recurrence times are mindboggling uber astronomical?

	Lets assume that time that is not experienced by information processing conscious observers does not "exist".		Lets assume that time that is not experienced by information processing conscious observers does not "exist".

Apm: /* lack of information processing time perceiving observers makes time "nonexistent" */

2017-09-28T13:50:09Z

lack of information processing time perceiving observers makes time "nonexistent"

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:50, 28 September 2017
Line 72:		Line 72:
	Except the [[simulation hypothesis]] (maybe in unconventional form) is applicable and all of the universe is the consequence of one (or many extensionally equivalent) very compact programs that require only very low dips in entropy.		Except the [[simulation hypothesis]] (maybe in unconventional form) is applicable and all of the universe is the consequence of one (or many extensionally equivalent) very compact programs that require only very low dips in entropy.

	== ~~lack~~ of information processing time perceiving observers makes time "nonexistent" ==		== Lack of information-processing time-perceiving observers makes time "nonexistent" ==

	So why seriously considering a spontaneous demixing event as the explanation for the big bang is recurrence times are mindboggling uber astronomical?		So why seriously considering a spontaneous demixing event as the explanation for the big bang is recurrence times are mindboggling uber astronomical?