This post might end up a bit of a jumbled mess but I just wanted to get a first draft of my thoughts out there and hopefully spark a discussion.
The Game of Life through Math
Mathematician John Conway constructed a model of the universe that not only could simulate all of existence, but also simulate a computer simulating all of existence. It can simulate a single quark gluon or atom, or an entire multiverse. As above, so below
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life
The Game of Life, also known simply as Life, is a cellular automaton devised by the British mathematician John Horton Conway in 1970.[1] It is a zero-player game, meaning that its evolution is determined by its initial state, requiring no further input. One interacts with the Game of Life by creating an initial configuration and observing how it evolves. It is Turing complete and can simulate a universal constructor or any other Turing machine.
The Game of Life through Physical Reality and the Feedback Mechanism
Douglas Hofstadter wrote two amazing books which he says “ are a very personal attempt to say how it is that animate beings can come out of inanimate matter. What is a self, and how can a self come out of stuff that is as selfless as a stone or a puddle?"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Hofstadter
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel,_Escher,_Bach
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_a_Strange_Loop
The way he answers this question is nothing short of revelatory. I would be unable to do it justice in anything less than directly transcribing those two books, but alas word limits and human imperfection limit me to just stealing more from Wikipedia:
the book discusses how, through self-reference and formal rules, systems can acquire meaning despite being made of "meaningless" elements. It also discusses what it means to communicate, how knowledge can be represented and stored, the methods and limitations of symbolic representation, and even the fundamental notion of "meaning" itself. What may seem like the random motion of senseless chemicals in space, with enough distance and perspective may resemble the chemical exchange of our synapses, a fungal network, or the structure of the universe itself. As above, so below.
The Game of Life through “Fiction”
Now I know people here can have harsh opinions on modern fiction and the transition from narrative to propaganda. However, what I see as one of the most important abilities for a human to have is the ability to see the truth in fiction. Joseph Campbell (expanding on the works of Jung mainly) best described this process through the language of symbolism and archetype. The same patterns and plays that dominate our subconscious dominate our waking reality or at least our interpretations there of. As above, so below.
Short 1 https://www.ishtar-collective.net/categories/book-unveiling
These are the rules of a game. Let it be played upon an infinite two-dimensional grid of flowers.
Rule One. A living flower with less than two living neighbors is cut off. It dies.
Rule Two. A living flower with two or three living neighbors is connected. It lives.
Rule Three. A living flower with more than three living neighbors is starved and overcrowded. It dies.
Rule Four. A dead flower with exactly three living neighbors is reborn. It springs back to life.
The only play permitted in the game is the arrangement of the initial flowers.
This game fascinates kings. This game occupies the very emperors of thought. Though it has only four rules, and the board is a flat featureless grid, in it you will find changeless blocks, stoic as iron, and beacons and whirling pulsars, as well as gliders that soar out to infinity, and patterns that lay eggs and spawn other patterns, and living cells that replicate themselves wholly. In it, you may construct a universal computer with the power to simulate, very slowly, any other computer imaginable and thus simulate whole realities, including nested copies of the flower game itself. And the game is undecidable. No one can predict exactly how the game will play out except by playing it.
And yet this game is nothing compared to the game played by the gardener and the winnower. It resembles that game as a seed does a flower—no, as a seed resembles the star that fed the flower and all the life that made it.
In their game, the gardener and the winnower discovered shapes of possibility. They foresaw bodies and civilizations, minds and cognitions, qualia and suffering. They learned the rules that governed which patterns would flourish in the game, and which would dwindle.
They learned those rules, because they were those rules.
And in time the gardener became vexed.
Short 2 https://www.ishtar-collective.net/cards/ghost-fragment-darkness-3
From the Journals of Toland, the Shattered
I drive myself to the edge of madness trying to explain the truth.
It's so simple. Elegant like a knife point. It explains - this is not hyperbole, this is the farthest thing from exaggeration - EVERYTHING.
But you lay it out and they stare at you like you've just been exhaling dust. Maybe they're missing some underlying scaffold of truth. Maybe they are all propped on a bed of lies that must be burned away.
Why does anything exist?
No no no no no don't reach for that word. There's no 'reason'. That's teleology and teleology will stitch your eyelids shut.
Why do we have atoms? Because atomic matter is more stable than the primordial broth. Atoms defeated the broth. That was the first war. There were two ways to be and one of them won. And everything that came next was made of atoms.
Atoms made stars. Stars made galaxies. Worlds simmered down to rock and acid and in those smoking primal seas the first living molecule learned to copy itself. All of this happened by the one law, the blind law, which exists without mind or meaning. It's the simplest law but it has no worshippers here (out there, though, out there - !)
HOW DO I EXPLAIN IT it's so simple WHY DON'T YOU SEE
Imagine three great nations under three great queens. The first queen writes a great book of law and her rule is just. The second queen builds a high tower and her people climb it to see the stars. The third queen raises an army and conquers everything.
The future belongs to one of these queens. Her rule is harshest and her people are unhappy. But she rules.
This explains everything, understand? This is why the universe is the way it is, and not some other way. Existence is a game that everything plays, and some strategies are winners: the ability to exist, to shape existence, to remake it so that your descendants - molecules or stars or people or ideas - will flourish, and others will find no ground to grow.
And as the universe ticks on towards the close, the great players will face each other. In the next round there will be three queens and all of them will have armies, and now it will be a battle of swords - until one discovers the cannon, or the plague, or the killing word.
Everything is becoming more ruthless and in the end only the most ruthless will remain (LOOK UP AT THE SKY) and they will hunt the territories of the night and extinguish the first glint of competition before it can even understand what it faces or why it has transgressed. This is the shape of victory: to rule the universe so absolutely that nothing will ever exist except by your consent. This is the queen at the end of time, whose sovereignty is eternal because no other sovereign can defeat it. And there is no reason for it, no more than there was reason for the victory of the atom. It is simply the winning play.
Of course, it might be that there was another country, with other queens, and in this country they sat down together and made one law and one tower and one army to guard their borders. This is the dream of small minds: a gentle place ringed in spears.
But I do not think those spears will hold against the queen of the country of armies. And that is all that will matter in the end.
This post could be 10000x longer with more detail and links, but like I mentioned above I’d just like to get the ball rolling on some discussions!
I would not read too much into that. t. early adopter.
1.) Conway's game of life was hot shit in the 20th century, when fascinating applications for computers were rare, especially for computers with very limited memory and processing power. Conway's invention IS fascinating, because you can build oscillators, oscillators that move, oscillators that spit moving oscillators, and so on. That was discovered by MITfags in the early 70s. You can see that state of the art here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyrtJn5eK5U This is about the level of nerdy Atari-kids in the 80s. We all did it, but lost interest quickly. Not everybody in the US did, however, or so it seems.
2.) The fact that "CGL is Turing-complete" was discovered in the early 21st century or so. This means absolutely nothing, because anything with which you can build a logical NAND or NOR is, and that was pretty much the invention that justified it. Fun fact: The game of Minesweeper, too, is Turing-complete. NAND/NORs are explained here: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=nand-gate+nor-gate I didn't watch that particular video, but it is not rocket science, so any video is probably good if you are interested. (As I'm writing this, I have a view on my own collection of NANDs and NORs made from n-channel and p-channel transistors as well as cheap relays on a corkboard on a wall. That's right, I never had a gf.)
3.) "Turing-complete" essentially means that you can build a computer from it, at least in fantasy. There are children who build computers in Minecraft, and they build them from - you guessed it - NAND and/or NOR-gates. Here is 1 example of thousands or more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbO0tqH8f5I
4.) Since there is nothing dedicated spergos will not go overboard with, there are CGL-computers, too, now. Here is a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kk2MH9O4pXY Again, this is not a lone nut, there is a complete underground sperging over that shit. CGL-computers are an important component for building CGL-replicators, i.e. CGL-thingies that can crank out arbitrary patterns, including themselves. Since "Turing-complete" means "computer", it is self-evident that you can simulate anything with it, including minds and quantum phenomena.
5.) 70s popsci authors loved CGL and philosophical implications, and that was great stuff to get boys into computing and shiieet. Speaking for myself, I consider those ideas quaint and a little cheesy today, like Isaac Asimov or bellbottom jeans. I'm an armchair philosopher myself with a focus on mind and cosmos, and CGL played a role in my thinking, but as an example of a cosmos that could not exist on its own, because it is based on arbitrary rules that can't hide their own contradictions. (Ultimate-ensemble-fag: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis . I invented that independendly from Max Tegmark for a comic in 1981 and perhaps have priority.)
OP is on to something, and great things started with CGL, so my recommendation is to keep reading and thinking.
Some great historical and technical context here on Conway’s game, thanks!
What are your thoughts on Gödel’s incompleteness theorem with regards to this topic? Is the entire idea of modeling a flawed basis to start at? Do you believe reality could be a simulation or have you any reason to rule that out?
Thanks, fren, also for your attention. I'm always glad to find an audience for shyte like this.
As for incompleteness: I have to pass on that one, because I don't know much about it. However, I believe (more in a religious sense) that new physics will come from that direction, that is, from thinking long and hard about the foundations of mathematics, what can be known and when, and so on. I wish I would know more about it, but progress is slow. My guess is that a cosmos exists when its rules are free from visible contradictions. Perhaps a black hole is a concession to Gödel in our cosmos, for hiding the inevitable contradictions.
I can't rule out anything at this point, because physics gets weirder by the day, apparently, and I don't know enough about it. HOWEVER, I believe that you might be closer to interesting truths with CGL and simulation than many mainstream physicist. Not so mainstream: "It from Bit", manyworlds, simulation, etc. "Simulation" is more like a figure of speech here, no simulators required.
And, btw., related to Gödel's incompleteness is Chaitin's insight that even in mathematics, there are truths that are true for no reason. I did not understand that either, but Chaitin can prove that. Transcript https://www.calculemus.org/Alg/Rob/biblioteka/viennaChait.html There is apparently a limit to what can be known or proven in math, and by extension, about the world.
Yes, exactly.
“ And yet this game is nothing compared to the game played by the gardener and the winnower. It resembles that game as a seed does a flower—no, as a seed resembles the star that fed the flower and all the life that made it.”
IMO that is a truly exciting idea. Finally science and math, through their own effort, have cast off the materialist reductionist world view that has weakened our connection with reality.
The next domino to fall hopefully? The observer “problem”. I am that can only dream. If you’re open to a cool video to spark some more discussion, check my submissions for “magic is and always has been real”.
The observer problem possibly joins cosmosses and consciousness in their corresponding hips. Consciousness is somehow a special phenomenon that is weird even if you are not into esoterics.
As for magic, I am not, but meme magic and the unreasonable effectiveness of occult practices are real, probably for psychological reasons. (The occult practice of maintaining a dream journal vastly improves dream recall after a couple of weeks. Putting exam material under the pillow before going to sleep the night before the exam improves test scores. Spamming Pepes on twitter increases Trump voter turnout. And so on.)
I will report back after checking your submission, but I have to do some mundane chores first. Thanks again.
The Game of Life through Math
SIM'ULATE, verb transitive [Latin simulo, from similis, like.] To feign; to counterfeits; to assume the mere appearance of something, without the reality.
Reality is the source of information, and it offer it through motion to all those within motion. There's no "without reality". Fiction is based on ones ignorance of motion, while transmuting upheld (as beliefs) assumptions about things that happened within motion. Onto those assumptions (beliefs) is where we attach truth and false, two fictitious states that do not exist within the reality of motion; constant change.
Let's start with this.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, but if we go by the current scientific paradigm, your “reality” is a shoddily constructed simulation, raw unprocessed quantum reality being warped and shredded and rearranged and ignored by your wet hardware and then fed to your sensory organs to be “experienced” as “reality”. Surely you aren’t saying that we know reality are you?
shoddily constructed
What does motion create? Momentum. Which is what? Temporary balance within motion. it is that balance between two natural opposites that allows form to come into existence, by allowing all within momentum (resistance to motion) to mimic (through resonance) the information offered by the flow of motion. Does that sound shoddily?
fed to your sensory organs to be “experienced" The input of all offered information to each one within requires communication, whcih represents the conscious perception. After that input comes the processing, which requires ones free will of choice to form comprehension about what the perceived information means, so that the consciousness then can act (output) upon the processed input of information.
Experience is thereby defined by choice, which represents ones responsibility to all offered.
Surely you aren’t saying that we know reality are you?
What is reality? ALL potentiality offered. What are you? ONE potential within. What's the key from ones potential to all potentiality offered? Ones comprehension, based on ones choice.
How does the potentiality of all self segregates into individual one potential? Through motion representing the loss of potentiality. Now what do you think is the reason for each one potential having a choice within the loss of potentiality?
To prune that which produces interference with the all from that which produces resonance? Maybe?...I don’t know?... how are you so confident in this? Because it resonates with your ONE?
To prune that which produces interference with the all from that which produces resonance?
The motion represents that which defines all within it, so nothing within motion can disrupt it in any way. Motion governs existence, which puts ones choice within all between adherence (ones needs) or ignorance (ones wants) towards self sustenance within the temporary balance (momentum).
What does balance within motion demand? Constant adaptation aka the struggle to survive.
how are you so confident in this?
Because I comprehend the only thing that cannot change within a system based on constant change (motion), which allows me to have a foundation to build my assumptions upon. What is the only thing that cannot change within motion?
Well according to quantum mechanical interpretations of reality an object’s motion (momentum) and its location are simultaneously (un)knowable, so I’m not sure what the answer here is, even if I give you the rest of your axioms and elaborations
Edit: no offense or attempt to reduce meant, but it almost feels to me like you just took the word “energy” in physics and replace it with “motion” but I’m just not sure what all that means or encompasses, thanks for taking the time to discuss in many of my threads I really appreciate it!
according to
That's the problem. Consenting to the false authority of others, while ignoring the sole authority over self. How can one comprehend all, if one uses his free will of choice to consent to another one acting "in the name of" (In Nomine) all?
(un)knowable
How can all be information offered to the perception of the ones within, yet be unknowable?
I’m not sure what the answer here is
The only thing within a system based on motion that cannot change; are the rules the define how motion operates. These rules are called the laws of nature, and we can only mentally comprehend them, while physically perceive the consequences of actions set into motion showing us the information as inspiration for creation towards adherence to self sustenance.
You are alive, which is physical proof within motion. Your life proves your inception and your death being set into motion, but you cannot physically proof that, only mentally comprehend it. This represents the balance between the body and the mind within motion.
Now try to figure out how motion operates and how all lifeforms can "instinctively" adhere to them?
You assert this, and I admit it feels logically consistent and, on some level atleast, true. However I’m not convinced it is an omnipresent truth, it could totally just be a truth fundamental to our level of perception. Like I’ve raised before, the cutting edge of science seems to fly in the face of your claims. What do you make of the research that indicates our “minds are made up” long before we ever consciously settle on a potential action in response to a choice?
My deepest desire is to understand the answer to these questions. But any explanation that leaves questions can’t be the explanation, right?