Where is the information stored?

[Davka]

What is the property of something that makes it an emergent thing?

My understanding is that the properties themselves are emergent. The simplest example I've read is the difference between a pile of steel rods and connecting nuts-and-bolts, and a tiger cage. Arranging the pile as a tiger cage imparts to it the property of 'containment,' something it didn't have as a jumbled pile.

Certain specific complex arrangements of matter give rise to emergent properties.

[Mister Agenda]

The reason smashing two electrons together gives you more mass in the form of particles then the two electrons themselves is because of mass energy equivalence. If you started with enough energy and just two electrons you could create enough particles to reconstruct anything.

Yes the outside energy for the smashing is magically derived through the magic of thought experiments. Stop being so nitty and have some fun with it.

Which brings us to the nit I was going to bring up: AFAIK, we can't do electron collisions. They're low mass and mutually repulsive, it would take so much energy tp produce an observable collision that I don't think we have anything yet that could do it.

I only have a layman's understanding, but my impression is that the outside energy is what could cause the electrons to produce anything more massive than photons...but maybe they would just produce more photons. Maybe someone else can speak with more knowledge about that.

Not attempting to contradict you, Heywood, more like expanding on your point, as I understand it.

[watchamadoodle]

What is the property of something that makes it an emergent thing?

My understanding is that the properties themselves are emergent. The simplest example I've read is the difference between a pile of steel rods and connecting nuts-and-bolts, and a tiger cage. Arranging the pile as a tiger cage imparts to it the property of 'containment,' something it didn't have as a jumbled pile.

Certain specific complex arrangements of matter give rise to emergent properties.

That sounds like the correct definition of "emergent" to me. I was using the world "emergent" without a clear understanding, so it probably made my post confusing.

To try to rephrase the question:

We think of computation as the result of the underlying machinery. The abstraction of computation is only governed by physical laws because the underlying machinery is governed by physical laws. Any minimum limit to the heat produced by a computation is due to the quantum mechanical limits of the underlying machinery.

Maybe we have it reversed and thought/computation/information is the underlying basis of mass/energy/...? Maybe the universal mind transcends the universe body? Maybe that explains supernatural phenomena?

(Woooooooooo )

[The Grand Nudger]

The "universal mind" would need a specific structure and a persistent architecture to achieve computation as we know it. It doesn't seem to have either of those things as a whole, even though little pieces of it do seem to have them.


As an analogy, imagine what would happen to your computer if I was constantly moving the busses, constantly shifting around the gates on the cpu and breaking and reforming connections. Now imagine what would happen if I removed all of the bussing and gates, and just fed energy into, around, and across the computer. How much computation do you think it would achieve? The question being asked, simply, is whether or not "the universe" provides an adequate architecture for computation-as-mind (an even loftier loftier task than "just computation".. I think the answer is no, personally (if it were yes..it would be difficult to see why we needed computers, we ought to be able to pluck the computation out of the air..literally). Don't get me wrong, the requirements for computation are sometimes suprisingly low, but they do exist - and "being really big and having alot of stuff in it" doesn't actually get something any closer to meeting those requirements.

[popeyespappy]

So if the large scale structure of the universe is a neural network, does it mean the expansion of space will eventually give god dementia?

[Mental Outlaw]

Imagine completely empty space. Now in that space place two electrons. Smash those electrons together hard enough and you get a shower of other particles....including protons. This suggests the information necessary to construct a proton is contained in the electron. Continue to smash particles together and conceivably you can have an entire universe....just like ours. Does the information necessary to construct a universe just like our exists in just two electrons? If it doesn't where does this information exist?

I'm not exactly sure, what is your proposition for where the information exist?

[watchamadoodle]

The "universal mind" would need a specific structure and a persistent architecture to achieve computation as we know it. It doesn't seem to have either of those things as a whole, even though little pieces of it do seem to have them.


As an analogy, imagine what would happen to your computer if I was constantly moving the busses, constantly shifting around the gates on the cpu and breaking and reforming connections. Now imagine what would happen if I removed all of the bussing and gates, and just fed energy into, around, and across the computer. How much computation do you think it would achieve? The question being asked, simply, is whether or not "the universe" provides an adequate architecture for computation-as-mind (an even loftier loftier task than "just computation".. I think the answer is no, personally (if it were yes..it would be difficult to see why we needed computers, we ought to be able to pluck the computation out of the air..literally). Don't get me wrong, the requirements for computation are sometimes suprisingly low, but they do exist - and "being really big and having alot of stuff in it" doesn't actually get something any closer to meeting those requirements.

I agree with what you say, but I think you are looking at the physical make-up of the universe and asking the question: "can the universe think like a human brain?" You're imagining scientifically, and I am imagining wooishly - something like "the Force".

[Alex K]

So if the large scale structure of the universe is a neural network, does it mean the expansion of space will eventually give god dementia?

Dark matter instead of grey matter, I like it. However, I think the universe already pretty dumb, considering that it takes a billion years for a signal to go from one end of this "Network" to the other. Incidentally, the number of galaxies in the observable universe is comparable to the number of neurons in your head, so the number of these neuron-like "nods" in the cosmos is vastly smaller than the number of neurons in your head. Hence I think even in the long run, you're smarter than the universe

[popeyespappy]

Ah, but that's the observable universe. Our hypothetical (very slow) universal neural network could be much larger. Maybe infinitely so.

[Davka]

I agree with what you say, but I think you are looking at the physical make-up of the universe and asking the question: "can the universe think like a human brain?" You're imagining scientifically, and I am imagining wooishly - something like "the Force".

Quick, mention entanglement and quantum foam to make it seem like there's a scientific basis for your woo!