[Recording Start]
Rick Rosner: Okay, let’s start with the concept of ‘It from Bit’ and digital cosmology, which posits that every physical occurrence in the universe carries computational significance. In computing, each circuit transition from zero to one, or vice versa, represents an informational event. However, reflecting on our discussions over the years and the universe’s structure, I’m inclined to think that the universe operates more flexibly than this strict digital framework suggests.
You have essential components like protons, neutrons, and a variety of particles that contain information, but the way this information is conveyed seems more holistic, or even tacit, than explicitly digital. I’m hesitant to use the term ‘holographic,’ but I doubt that every single physical interaction in the universe carries a distinct informational meaning. It might be that information manifests more in the aggregate.
Take, for example, the interactions inside a star, where countless photons and particles are exchanged at an incredible rate. Most of these interactions leave no lasting record; they are part of a chaotic process involving fusion and heat transfer. For every successful fusion from hydrogen to helium, there are countless near-misses with no permanent trace. The individual interactions that lead to the accumulation of helium from hydrogen aren’t recorded; they’re lost in the sea of activity. The universe doesn’t seem to maintain a detailed record of these events. This suggests to me a universe that operates less on strict computational events and more on a looser, aggregate-based system.
Regarding the nature of changes, countless physical interactions occur without leaving any trace. This leads us into a philosophical realm, akin to the ‘tree falling in the forest’ conundrum. If we only know about events in terms of the broader universe interacting with them, and this interaction is what imparts information, then the specificity of these events may not fundamentally exist. It’s challenging to discuss changes if they don’t have a tangible, enduring presence. This might be an indication that the universe does not function in a strictly digital manner, unlike digital events in a computer, which are based on definitive circuit transitions.
I don’t think there are actual atoms in the center of the sun where fusion happens. Instead, there are probably just nuclei. Given the extreme temperatures and pressures there, I suspect that atoms as we typically understand them can’t exist. It’s more likely just nuclei bouncing off each other, with electrons forming a sort of sea, not specifically belonging to any one nucleus but swirling around somewhat indeterminately. The exact physics of the sun’s core is beyond my full understanding, but the conditions there seem too harsh for traditional atomic structures to remain intact. This sea of nuclei and electrons results in definite events and consequences, but the process is chaotic. When the energy finally reaches the sun’s surface and photons are emitted, we can trace their individual histories here on Earth with detectors. However, the myriad interactions at the sun’s core leave no record, opposing the precision and definiteness that some theorists, like Fredkin, might argue for.
About the concept of finiteness, I’m generally averse to the idea of infinities, unless they’re so abstract or distant as to have no practical impact on the universe’s workings. We’ve previously discussed some theoretical infinities, like the idea of “turtles all the way down,” which poses a difficult problem. But if an infinity is merely implied and infinitely far removed in terms of causality or nested within other realms, then perhaps it’s not a direct concern.
I agree with the notion that the universe is finite. Fredkin suggests everything is finite and digital, but I’d lean more towards saying everything is finite and quantum mechanical. Quantum mechanics involves a degree of ‘digitality,’ but also an absence of it. It’s essentially the mathematics of incomplete information. Quantum events are often incompletely specified because full specification would demand an infinite amount of information, meaning every quantum event carries a non-zero probability of differing from observation. If you could bring a quantum physicist and Fredkin together, they might find some common ground, or they might not. It would be interesting to see if they could reconcile Fredkin’s digital perspective with the quantum mechanical nature of the universe.
So, what’s the fourth principle we’re considering?
[Recording End]
Authors
Rick Rosner
American Television Writer
Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Founder, In-Sight Publishing
In-Sight Publishing
License and Copyright
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at http://www.rickrosner.org.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Rick Rosner, and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Rick Rosner, and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
Rick Rosner 