Is the Universe a Computer? New Evidence Emerges.

Mon Mar 26, 2012 11:08 pm » by **Cosmine**

If the universe as a source code,the programmer most have been an idiot genius or it got hacked somewhere down the line.

:cheers:

Mon Mar 26, 2012 11:15 pm » by **Nilm33**

I find it syncronistically fascinating that I was working on this song when this thread popped up. Now its finished, hope you enjoy

Upload to Disclose.tv

Tue Mar 27, 2012 3:24 am » by **Cosmine**

[youtube]0l6ZBZnOBCA&feature[/youtube]
10 mins
:cheers:

Tue Mar 27, 2012 4:29 pm » by **Iamthatiam**

edgarrothstein wrote:If we look to the universe like that , Boole's got the point :

In classical logic, with its intended semantics, the truth values are true (1 or T) and false (0 or ⊥); that is, classical logic is a two-valued logic. This set of two values is also called the Boolean domain. Corresponding semantics of logical connectives are truth functions, whose values are expressed in the form of truth tables. Logical biconditional becomes the equality binary relation and negation becomes a bijection which permutes true and false. Conjunction and disjunction are dual with respect to negation, which is expressed by De Morgan's laws:

¬(p∧q) ⇔ ¬p ∨ ¬q
¬(p∨q) ⇔ ¬p ∧ ¬q

Propositional variables become variables in the Boolean domain. Assigning values for propositional variables is referred to as valuation.

Boole was a fucking genius...

What'd had he said about this?...

http://www.disclose.tv/forum/quantum-computing-device-hints-at-powerful-future-t69936.html#p757880

Tue Mar 27, 2012 4:49 pm » by **Edgarrothstein**

iamthatiam wrote:
edgarrothstein wrote:If we look to the universe like that , Boole's got the point :

In classical logic, with its intended semantics, the truth values are true (1 or T) and false (0 or ⊥); that is, classical logic is a two-valued logic. This set of two values is also called the Boolean domain. Corresponding semantics of logical connectives are truth functions, whose values are expressed in the form of truth tables. Logical biconditional becomes the equality binary relation and negation becomes a bijection which permutes true and false. Conjunction and disjunction are dual with respect to negation, which is expressed by De Morgan's laws:

¬(p∧q) ⇔ ¬p ∨ ¬q
¬(p∨q) ⇔ ¬p ∧ ¬q

Propositional variables become variables in the Boolean domain. Assigning values for propositional variables is referred to as valuation.

Boole was a fucking genius...

What'd had he said about this?...

http://www.disclose.tv/forum/quantum-computing-device-hints-at-powerful-future-t69936.html#p757880

A LOT of reading? :mrgreen:

Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:00 pm » by **Iamthatiam**

edgarrothstein wrote:If we look to the universe like that , Boole's got the point :

In classical logic, with its intended semantics, the truth values are true (1 or T) and false (0 or ⊥); that is, classical logic is a two-valued logic. This set of two values is also called the Boolean domain. Corresponding semantics of logical connectives are truth functions, whose values are expressed in the form of truth tables. Logical biconditional becomes the equality binary relation and negation becomes a bijection which permutes true and false. Conjunction and disjunction are dual with respect to negation, which is expressed by De Morgan's laws:

¬(p∧q) ⇔ ¬p ∨ ¬q
¬(p∨q) ⇔ ¬p ∧ ¬q

Propositional variables become variables in the Boolean domain. Assigning values for propositional variables is referred to as valuation.

Boole was a fucking genius...

edgarrothstein wrote:
iamthatiam wrote:
What'd had he said about this?...

http://www.disclose.tv/forum/quantum-computing-device-hints-at-powerful-future-t69936.html#p757880

A LOT of reading?

There are tons of tons more! :wink:

But if you wanna cut the crap short, and go straight to what I meant, here...

A classical computer has a memory made up of bits, where each bit represents either a one or a zero. A quantum computer maintains a sequence of qubits. A single qubit can represent a one, a zero, or, crucially, any quantum superposition of these two qubit states; moreover, a pair of qubits can be in any quantum superposition of 4 states, and three qubits in any superposition of 8. In general, a quantum computer with n qubits can be in an arbitrary superposition of up to 2^n different states simultaneously (this compares to a normal computer that can only be in one of these 2^n states at any one time). A quantum computer operates by manipulating those qubits with a fixed sequence of quantum logic gates. The sequence of gates to be applied is called a quantum algorithm.

Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:12 pm » by **Iamthatiam**

edgarrothstein wrote:A LOT of reading?

You could also check this thread, ED...Great reading if you are seeking new computing paradigms!

Stratafire was Brilliant, bearing a fully operational high level of intelligence, too bad the guy is M.I.A. :think:

http://www.disclose.tv/forum/quantified-infinity-a-true-shift-in-the-paradigm-of-tech-t46280.html

Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:27 pm » by **Rydher**

While it's fun and stimulating to the mind to come up with stuff like this, in the end it's as useless as trying to change most DTV users minds on any given subject. To try and put something as alien as creation into a little box that we are able to comprehend is natural but arrogant to think 'this is how it is'. Especially when we can't even answer the most basic questions of creation and the universe. Sure, there are theories but none really make sense.

Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:33 pm » by **Iamthatiam**

rydher wrote:While it's fun and stimulating to the mind to come up with stuff like this, in the end it's as useless as trying to change most DTV users minds on any given subject. To try and put something as alien as creation into a little box that we are able to comprehend is natural but arrogant to think 'this is how it is'. Especially when we can't even answer the most basic questions of creation and the universe. Sure, there are theories but none really make sense.

I guess you expect everyone to settle inside this kind of comformism you are stuck in?

What is arrogant, again? 8-)

Maybe its because this would make you feel more confortable with your Philosophical Laziness, to have everyone stuck with you, aye?!

Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:41 pm » by **Rydher**

What the hell are you talking about? Conformism? I'm saying we have a limited understanding and to try and explain everything as we understand it. Then say that's probably how it is, is arrogant. Like I said, we can't even explain the most basic questions of creation, yet can come up with theories on how everything is and how it interacts?

From our perspective, everything has a beginning. Right? Even God. Christianity tells you that God always was, always is, and always will be. The way I see things. How can that be? Even theories that say time isn't linear. None of the theories can explain the very beginning of everything. It's just something I can't understand. If you can, please do.

Tell me one thing that doesn't have a beginning.