RE: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

['Chris de Morsella' via Everything List]

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 7:57 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to 
dialectics?

 

On Sun, Jan 25, 2015  'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
<everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

 

> The very simple operation of defining the square root of two generates an -- 
> (as far as we know infinitely extending) – number stream that is 
> characterized by a high degree of randomness.

 

That would only be pseudorandom. 

Agreed and said as much by phrasing in terms of having a high degree of 
randomness (perhaps I should have been specific and said pseudorandom)

 

Algorithms are deterministic, and random means a event without a cause. There 
exists a short algorithm that can produce the decimal value of digits the 
square root of 2 to any desired degree of precision so it can't be random.  PI 
also has such a algorithm, and so does e and so does any real number you can 
name, so none of them can be random.

 

However Turing proved in 1936 that the vast majority of  numbers on the real 
number line have no name and no algorithm can produce them, or rather the only 
"algorithm" to produce a true random number would  be just as long as the as 
the number itself; for example the only "algorithm" that could produce a 
sequence of truly random digits would just be a list of those digits. That's 
why no program can compress random white noise. To produce true randomness 
you'd need a physical random number generator, something involving radioactive 
decay or photons of light hitting a polarizing filter would do the trick.  

 

As with so many other things it is a matter of degree. There are a plethora of 
pseudorandom number generators out there and they are compared to each other 
based on the “randomness” of their sampled output. A good generator (when also 
well seeded) does a fairly good (though of course not perfect) job. But I agree 
it is devilishly hard to produce a truly random stream and a lot of brain power 
has gone into trying to do so, because of the strategic importance of doing so.

 

Turing also proved that while the computable numbers are denumerable, that is 
countably infinite,  the non-computable (random) numbers belong to the next 
higher class of infinity.So if you had a dart with a infinitely sharp point and 
threw it at the real number line there is a 100% chance it will hit a 
non-computable number and a 0% chance it will hit a computable number. 

 

Agreed, but also true that it is possible to define useful sub classes amongst 
the larger set of all non-computable numbers, according to how compressible the 
output stream is. Ten divided by three results in a non-computable number that 
is however quite amenable to compression algorithms that could represent any 
given chunk of the infinite stream using far less bits than the represented 
numeric stream itself… a series of 3333333333333333333333333333333333333333 is 
easy to compress. The highly random output stream – take any local section of 
the stream – of square root of two is instead very difficult to compress, e.g. 
the “compressed” encoding of a given chunk (KB, MB, GB etc.) of its output 
would probably not take any less storage resources than the raw data.

 

By the way I think Alan Turing was one of the giants of 20th century science, 
the current movie "The Imitation Game" is about his non-scientific but very 
important work breaking the German Enigma Code during the second world war. I 
loved the movie.

 

So do I… and the British persecuted him to death in gratitude, after he 
possibly saved them in the war by breaking Enigma. But at least they protected 
Christian values and also finally posthumously awarded him a medal (2013) 

 

> Now say you are an observer from a parallel universe who somehow gets akind 
> of sample set through some absurd imaginary portal that deluges the poor 
> fellow with reams upon reams of seemingly random data

 

By "seemingly random" I assume you mean it came from a algorithm.

 

Yes, it is not truly random, but the chunks have been randomly scrambled in the 
transmission (assume it for the sake of argument)… now I am not sure, perhaps 
square root of two will leave subtle patterns in the apparently random series 
that a clever algorithm could pull out. This possibility increases as the chunk 
size increases, and conversely it becomes less likely if the order scrambled 
transmitted data packets are smaller size – a KB versus a TB -- 

 

> each one of them, let’s give it a data dimension say a KB, MB, GB doesn’t 
> matter, but constrained to a given chunk or window size. These 
> inter-dimensional data packets unfortunately arrive to our observer in a 
> scrambled order

 

How is the data stream scrambled, by another algorithm or a physical random 
process such as radioactivity decay?   

 

Assume by some physical random process – assume for the sake of discussion that 
the ordering of the packets has been truly scrambled. 

Also need to assume that the key first packet containing the portion of the 
number to the left of the ‘dot’ is explicitly excluded from the transmission. 
Only packets of numbers are transmitted; no other symbols.

 

>The data deluge arrives for eternity… but will the recipient ever be able to 
>derive the function from the data.

 

In other words will the recipient ever be able to predict what the next digit 
will be?

 

I was thinking more of the strong challenge of reassembling the packets into 
their correct order;  by working back to a proof of the function that generated 
the output stream, given only the (truly) out of order packets, each containing 
only numbers (no special key packet allowed, would defeat the discussion). 
Personally I think their situation would be hopeless in that scenario; they 
could never work their way back no matter how many resources they threw at the 
problem.

In any case it was just a thought experiment to illustrate how apparently 
highly random (or pseudo-random of a superb quality) data could be the result 
of a having only a partial and perhaps also scrambled view of an infinite 
unbounded set that is the result output of a very simple initial function 
running in an infinite recursion. I am arguing the point of view that 
perspective is a critical factor; and that the complexity of a system can 
become radically different if another perspective can be assumed by the 
observer. The observer is inextricably bound to the perspective intrinsic in 
their point of view.

I do support however the notion that there is a kind of abstract escape hatch 
that enables us to take on points of view – in an abstract sense – that would 
be impossible for us to have in our actual universally constrained selves. We 
can abstractly imagine ourselves as being outside the universe viewing all that 
is from a bird’s eye view (it gets very much harder however to imagine oneself 
as being outside the multiverse…. I cannot imagine that state myself, and I 
imagine that anyone claiming they can is imagining things. Or maybe it is just 
my lack of imagination.

-Chris

 

If you had a large enough sample and true randomness was not used then you 
could at least in theory predict what the next digit will be ( assuming you 
don't run up against the limit on the number of computations the universe says 
can be performed in it),  but if true physical randomness was involved at any 
point then it would be hopeless.

 

 

  John K Clark

 

 

 

 

 

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.