Resolution of the Universe

[anomalous howard]

Welcome howard! Thanks for sharing your ideas - very interesting, we have a very similar approach, looking forward to more discussions and exchange with you.

there's so much text and so many points that deserve answers and more discussion, it's a bit overwhelming..
Before I write nothing, I'll just write a few thoughts and will probably leave out a lot.

Where do I start..
I don't claim that the universe actually IS discrete voxels. My calculation was a little fun-number-play, don't take my use of terms like voxels too serious.

But: I think it is discrete in relation to the observer. This seems to match with Howards idea of the interface/observer.
I'd like to use the Mandelbrot-Set as simple model to explain: You look at a rendered picture of a zoomed in part of the Mset. It has a fixed resolution like 1920*1080. With discrete pixels. But that is only the current snapshot at the current magnification. You can of course zoom in or out to reveal more or less details.
And so the image you look at is at the same time discrete and continuous. Always depending on the field of view of the observer.
Also, you do have an absolute limit in the mandelbrot set, like the planck units: When zoomed out so far that the area of the mset -2 to +1 is displayed as one single pixel. You have no more shapes or rules. No more working "physics" that make sense.



Regarding entropy:
I think an important point that is frequently left out with entropy is the following:
Evolution of technology has always been speeding up. We call it Moore's Law when it comes to computers. But I'm convinced that you can observe Moore's Law also in biological evolution and probably even until the BigBang.
I've posted this a few times, but pictures say more than a thousand words
<Quoted Image Removed>
Couple this with the concept of shapestacking in the mandelbrot-set and you get a whole new perspective on entropy and the power law.
It's about different levels of complexity. Each new Level of complexity has the lower levels below embedded into it, consists of them, but on the new level you start with a complexity of zero. "Relative" entropy is 'reset' to zero and starts rising from there.
Complex arrangements of elementary particles forming single atoms.
complex arrangements of atoms forming single molecules.
Complex arrangements of single molecules forming a single cell
Complex arrangements of single cells form complex organisms like humans.
Complex arrangements of single humans connecting  through the internet forming a new level of complexity, a global brain...

Entropy is relative!
It keeps rising, but starts all over on each level of complexity.
And this speeds exponentially.

And I don't mean complexity as in chaos. chaos is extremely complex. real complexity, with 'meaningful' information always is fractal.

Putting these observations together, I find it pointless to talk about that "endstate" of the universe, where everything theoretically smoothes out.
It's like Achilles and the tortoise. He'll never reach it.


@Tglad:
Please continue participating. If there is no interdisciplinary talk there is no evolution of ideas. No one can be a specialist in all areas.
Especially when it comes to a fractal worldview, you need to know a littlebit of everything, to put the whole image together.
I really miss appreciation of the polymath or rennaisance man in todays culture.
In the past I often didn't participate in discussions, in fear of looking like a fool to the specialists. But this is foolish in itself. How can we learn and grow that way?
Our society is obsessed with specialization.
And this has brought us lots of progress, no doubt.
But it also brings us into the danger of getting lost in the micro-view and missing the big picture.
We need to find a better balance.




So much for now, have to start working.. Sorry I haven't dived into more details of your ideas Howard. Another day..


edit:
on consciousness.
howard, I strongly recommend Peter Russel, "primacy of consciousness", check on youtube.
I share that view. Consciousness is in everything, the more complex and responsive to the surrounding the more conscious a being (or object).
I like to see it as "consciousness is measurement". Even a single elementary particle is conscious on the most basic level. when 2 elementary particles meet, they "measure" each others velocity, direction, energy... and this will result in a certain probabilty of consistent output.
if there is no interaction, it doesn't manifest/exist. not part of our universe, irrelevant.
double-slit, wave particle dualism, large fullerene molecules act as a wave - if not measured.
"the moon isn't there if no one is looking." true imho - but it measures itself, the particles of itself interact with themselves. so it's not necessary that there is a distant observer as the moon "observes" itself. or should i say measures itself, is conscious of itself..
sorry, had to get rid of this. though far too short, this could fill several evenings of realtime discussion..

Welcome back Chillheimer,

I like the diagram.  It's very close to what my mind's eye sees as I think about this puzzle.

I think the first place to start a response is to go back to the assumptions that have to be made to begin a computer simulation of a universe that returns a result exactly matching observation of our universe.

The first is that the universe is finite.  Since a one word answer to the question, "what is the universe?", can correctly be, "everything", it logically follows that "everything" is finite.
Another way to correctly answer the question...in three words...is, "ALL possible information".  
Ergo, information is finite.  The process of the universe's expression of information is then finite.  There is no such thing as "never" in this case.  Never cannot exist.  I use the word "possible" since that is a term central to the concept of "real".  And, as far as we can tell, the universe is real in such a way as to render the exclusion of the "impossible" from "ALL information".

Can it ever reach a state of "finity" in reality where ALL information has been expressed?  For the purposes of the computer simulation, it has to be assumed that it does.  And what would the structure of the universe be at that point?   Once it reaches that state there can be no more.  So how does the universe "proceed" from there?  It can't...unless it starts over.
And if it's true that information is always "retained", a restart would produce a replicate from the same point singularity.

I also understand your ideas on "consciousness" as having a sliding scale.  That is why I put consciousness IN the physical universe.
In that way the moon can "measure/experience" itself but it's not going to write a book about itself.  The moon, on this level "understands" itself and anything on that sliding scale will also "understand" any physical relationship it has to the moon.

Why do I bring up "writing a book"?  The moon has no need to write a book to understand itself.  Its mode of communication is through what we are working on, physics and cosmology.  Why do WE need books.  We are "Observers"  or "end-users".
If we need to invent a method of communication with physics and cosmology it follows that the end-user isn't IN the physical universe but interfaces with it.

All this because of one assumption..."nothing is infinite".

[Chillheimer]

wow. this sucks. I just wrote roughly 2 pages and hit some wrong button. all gone. aaaarrggg...
I'll have to take the time to rewrite this another day. Have to go now.

[anomalous howard]

wow. this sucks. I just wrote roughly 2 pages and hit some wrong button. all gone. aaaarrggg...
I'll have to take the time to rewrite this another day. Have to go now.

I hate it when that happens.

Since finite vs infinite is a bit off the thread topic here, and you have started a thread on finite/infinite elsewhere, I'd suggest moving this discussion there if you would.  I have also started a topic over there on my model with a rewritten version.
I look forward to your return.
http://www.fractalogy.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=98

[Chillheimer]

Okay, let's get this over with. Next try  (I installed Lazarus Form recovery for Chrome and hope this will safe me if this happens again)

First of all I don't like the usage of the terms Computer & Simulation in this context.
It implies so many things that are too far out.
Whenever I've used these words in discussions, it always leads to: So who is running the computer? Some kind of super-aliens? Are they a simulation of even superior mega aliens with an even higher developed technology?
All these discussions lead to nothing because people cling to that thought and everything becomes so unrealistic through it.

I personally prefer to describe it somewhat like this (keep in mind, english is not my native language, it's hard to find the right words in german for me already)
Every point in space can be (at least) compared to a quantum bit. (maybe it even IS a quantum bit)
A quantum bit can have infinite states at the same time.
An empty point in space is flooded by electromagnetic waves from all directions of the surrounding cosmos. It has embeded all these information at a point in time.
So all points in space are connected through radiation.

I don't see the need to use words like simulation or computer.
I very much like the term Konrad Zuse used in his outstanding paper: Rechnender Raum which translates to "Calculating Space" (english pdf)

The first is that the universe is finite.  Since a one word answer to the question, "what is the universe?", can correctly be, "everything", it logically follows that "everything" is finite.
Another way to correctly answer the question...in three words...is, "ALL possible information".  

I believe a fractal approach can solve the problem of finite vs infinite.
Because a fractal has both in my opinion. (waiting for sockratease to crawl out of his cave any minute now )

Take an image of the Mandelbrot-Set.
It has a fixed resolution, like 1920*1080 points that have been iterated through z->z²+c to find if they are part of the Mset or not.
That still image is finite.
But if you add time and keep iterating by zooming into certain coordinates, it can go on infinitely.
It expands - like the universe.
And it just has one direction of causality, an arrow of time. You need the previous value to enter into z-z²+c.
It's entropy rises.
It's a closed yet open system.
If you take the current slice of time, the now, it is finite (as the observable universe).
But if you take the overall system it is infinite.

Can it ever reach a state of "finity" in reality where ALL information has been expressed?  For the purposes of the computer simulation, it has to be assumed that it does.  And what would the structure of the universe be at that point?   Once it reaches that state there can be no more.  So how does the universe "proceed" from there?  It can't...unless it starts over.
And if it's true that information is always "retained", a restart would produce a replicate from the same point singularity.

That "starting over" can be observed in the Mset as well, you reach Mini-Mandelbrot-Sets and the same patterns repeat all over. But based on the previous patterns.
Same in the universe - you can observe the same fractal patterns on all levels of complexity throughout the Cosmos.
I'd file that under "strong evidence"



Hm.. I had written more last time, but the train of thought has departed...
I'll better post now, before loosing again.

[kram1032]

youhn well I don't know the details, to be honest. I should rather say there is no reason to believe so. With LIGO we can measure insanely tiny sizes, which is how we discovered gravitational waves, but that's still far off from measuring anything close to Planck scale. To my knowledge, though, things work out less problematically under a continuous space/time hypothesis.

As for the occurrence of quantization, that mathematically only ever occurs when we assume a boundary. For instance, the famous "particle in a box" - if we do that calculation and make our box larger and larger, at infinity the quantization just disappears. Similarly, for a hydrogen atom, higher and higher energy states of a bound electron lie closer and closer together until they essentially behave classically. Once the electron has too much energy, it isn't bound at all any longer and resumes a continuous (though inherently imprecisely measurable) path.
The universe appears to be (but the debate isn't entirely settled) entirely unbounded. "Boundaries at infinity", as would be required for such a setting, don't have any effect at all on any close state. No quantization, no "voxelized" space-time.
There certainly are theories that attempt to have such a fundamentally discrete world anyway, but to my knowledge they are, for usually good reasons, not very popular.
When you hear "fundamentally smallest scale" you shouldn't think of digital cameras with their fixed pixel-wise resolution but rather of the effective resolution that the cameras' optics will produce. There are no sharp jumps but rather any smaller details are completely washed out.
Our own eyes, for instance, have such a limit, which is about 1 arc minute in the center of our vision but significantly lower off-center. That means, if two lines are about 1 arc minute apart, we can still just about tell. If it's less, we'll soon perceive them as a single line.

This picture roughly gives you an idea:

As you can see, at the top the two dots are easily distinguishable. At the bottom you will certainly see that what you are looking at isn't perfectly circular but it may be hard to tell that this happens to be two dots. This idea can vary continuously. The minimum dot resolution is "set by the universe", so to speak. But how far they can be apart is not.

[anomalous howard]

Okay, let's get this over with. Next try  (I installed Lazarus Form recovery for Chrome and hope this will safe me if this happens again)

First of all I don't like the usage of the terms Computer & Simulation in this context.
It implies so many things that are too far out.
Whenever I've used these words in discussions, it always leads to: So who is running the computer? Some kind of super-aliens? Are they a simulation of even superior mega aliens with an even higher developed technology?
All these discussions lead to nothing because people cling to that thought and everything becomes so unrealistic through it.

I personally prefer to describe it somewhat like this (keep in mind, english is not my native language, it's hard to find the right words in german for me already)
Every point in space can be (at least) compared to a quantum bit. (maybe it even IS a quantum bit)
A quantum bit can have infinite states at the same time.
An empty point in space is flooded by electromagnetic waves from all directions of the surrounding cosmos. It has embeded all these information at a point in time.
So all points in space are connected through radiation.

I don't see the need to use words like simulation or computer.
I very much like the term Konrad Zuse used in his outstanding paper: Rechnender Raum which translates to "Calculating Space" (english pdf)

I believe a fractal approach can solve the problem of finite vs infinite.
Because a fractal has both in my opinion. (waiting for sockratease to crawl out of his cave any minute now )

Take an image of the Mandelbrot-Set.
It has a fixed resolution, like 1920*1080 points that have been iterated through z->z²+c to find if they are part of the Mset or not.
That still image is finite.
But if you add time and keep iterating by zooming into certain coordinates, it can go on infinitely.
It expands - like the universe.
And it just has one direction of causality, an arrow of time. You need the previous value to enter into z-z²+c.
It's entropy rises.
It's a closed yet open system.
If you take the current slice of time, the now, it is finite (as the observable universe).
But if you take the overall system it is infinite.

That "starting over" can be observed in the Mset as well, you reach Mini-Mandelbrot-Sets and the same patterns repeat all over. But based on the previous patterns.
Same in the universe - you can observe the same fractal patterns on all levels of complexity throughout the Cosmos.
I'd file that under "strong evidence"



Hm.. I had written more last time, but the train of thought has departed...
I'll better post now, before loosing again.

I was waiting for someone to point out where infinity might lie and you got it right, congratulations!
Except the only way to truly observe it where you have found it is from outside the simulation....outside the universe.  And then you would only see a bright white light that is "on" forever...into infinity.

I'm going to stick with simulation because other peoples' uninformed questions about who or what is controlling it or them should not affect the model.  It's pretty obvious that each person controls themselves.

As for the answer to those questions, it's most likely humans of the future who develop the simulation, as stated in the description.  The physics of the universe within the sim remain unchangeable, the physics cannot be manipulated.  It could not properly proceed otherwise.

The only source of options to manipulate anything goes through a person.  The construct of "consciousness" is the medium with which to implement options of manipulation.  The construct of consciousness is so widely accepted and self-apparent that people often don't even think about it as they imagine an innovative option...a new choice or set of choices...and add them to already previously known options stored in their own memory.
So your consciousness controls your body just as an "end-user" controls an avatar.  Your body IS an avatar for your conscious.  Your body is an avatar no matter how you try to define "human".  Your conscious is the "user" of that avatar.  
Does any rational person think to ask, "Is my conscious a super mega-alien controlling my body?"  After all, you cannot tell WHAT your conscious looks like.  Would it matter what your conscious looked like even if you could tell?  No.  You would still be you.  Your conscious is your expression of your identity.

What I am saying in the model is that, your conscious is wholly dependent on your body's physical existence so it is part of the physical universe.  It uses your body (interfaces with an avatar) to acquire information through optional manipulations of the physical in compliance with the underlying "laws" of physics.

My model then goes up fractal with it....it "zooms out".  Your conscious, being part of the physical universe, then interfaces with an extra-universal conscious.
You cannot tell WHAT that looks like either but it is still YOU.  Your inter-universal conscious is an electromagnetic field using your physical body as an avatar and that field is serving as an avatar for the extra-universal conscious....an electromagnetic field that is YOU.  But the extra-universal you has access to the infinite and thus can access infinite possible options.  This brings the CONCEPT of infinity into the physical universe but not the actual OCCURRENCE of infinity.

Over the last couple weeks I have filled out the model with more detail (yes, it's longer :-) ) and started a facebook page for it.

So...what happens when you make consciousness within a universe the highest level of interface...ie the last stop for fractal expression of interfacing?

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/RPmfgHwuLhY&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/v/RPmfgHwuLhY&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1</a>

If the dog could talk it might ask, "How are those super-mega aliens DOING that?"

[youhn]

The minimum dot resolution is "set by the universe", so to speak. But how far they can be apart is not.

The whole post was a good read, but this was a kind of aha-moment for me. This would mean smaller things than the planck length can exists, if I understand it correctly. We need electron microscopy to make the world visible below the atomic scale. That's a jump of about 1000 orders of magnitude, down from wavelength of light (10^-7) to the size of an atom. No current technology can look into an atom (10^-11) or an electron, but we can smash those particles together so they scatter and leave traces. Quarks (10^-18) for example are 60000 orders of magnitude smaller than a hydrogen atom, this is about the resolution of LIGO. How does time scale at these "zoom depths"? Do we have to look at smaller and smaller timeframes, in order to observe smaller and smaller sizes? We can freeze matter down to almost absolute zero, but this does not conserve (macro) structure and (nano and lower scale) behaviour. I wonder what the future will bring. Would we be able to look more directly at these very small scales?

In general I don't really like the idea of the universe being a simulation. At the same time I do have some sentimental feeling for digital physics, but I do not believe the world is strictly digital as in 0 and 1 (or similar ON, OFF). The universe could really on computing methods, if you would see a computer as a general information processing device. Then each state of the universe would get processes into the next iteration, of itself. There is no separation between the computer, the program, the input and the output. The world computes itself from the initial state to whatever the logic of the smallest parts drives it to. If that initial state as either completely ordered or completely chaotic (which is a kind of order in itself) then there would be no differentiation and time and space would have so less meaning you could say they don't exists. Somewhere along the shifts of configuration the basic principles of the universe where crystallized. Massive phase changes of the very young universe caused the formation of different particles. Not a smooth process, but more in waves or blows. In our current age of the universe the phase seems stable over long periods of time, at the same time the structure has become more fragmented. Giving more complexity at different orders of magnitude. How is it possible that (mostly flow related) phenomenon look the same as massive different scales? This would imply a computational method intervowen in different scales, which seem to contradict a more grid-like computer.

Another angle. How would dark energy and dark matter look at the very small scales?

[anomalous howard]

First of all I don't like the usage of the terms Computer & Simulation in this context.
It implies so many things that are too far out.

I would like to suggest a readjustment of perspective.  I completely understand your hesitation about terminology.

Terminology can be a quirky thing.  Sometimes a term, all by itself, can produce hard and/or soft psycho-social restrictions among an entire populace that can limit an individual's perspective.  I therefore propose that the term, "mainstream science", be replaced by, "prevailing psycho-social mindset of empiricism".

Whereas "mainstream" conceptually locks the perception of useful scientific endeavor into recent history, that's only a small part of the entire river system of inquiry I discussed here:
https://www.facebook.com/anomalous.howard.3/posts/144392299395704

Here's the crux of it....There's been a major assumption in the prevailing psycho-social mindset of empiricism which insists that there can be no condition that exists where "not universe" is possible. 

The arbitrary and unwarranted restrictive effect of that specific mindset is well illustrated by the following.  Note how its persistence derailed open-minded exploration and has led to ever greater explanatory convolutions in order to avoid the obvious even as observational evidence accumulates which demands consideration of "not universe" as a rational component of the entirety of reality.

"In the 1920s, theoretical physicists, most notably Albert Einstein, considered the possibility of a cyclic model for the universe as an (everlasting) alternative to the model of an expanding universe. However, work by Richard C. Tolman in 1934 showed that these early attempts failed because of the cyclic problem: according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, entropy can only increase.[1] This implies that successive cycles grow longer and larger. Extrapolating back in time, cycles before the present one become shorter and smaller culminating again in a Big Bang and thus not replacing it. This puzzling situation remained for many decades until the early 21st century when the recently discovered dark energy component provided new hope for a consistent cyclic cosmology.[2] In 2011, a five-year survey of 200,000 galaxies and spanning 7 billion years of cosmic time confirmed that "dark energy is driving our universe apart at accelerating speeds."[3][4]

One new cyclic model is a brane cosmology model of the creation of the universe, derived from the earlier ekpyrotic model. It was proposed in 2001 by Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University and Neil Turok of Cambridge University. The theory describes a universe exploding into existence not just once, but repeatedly over time.[5][6] The theory could potentially explain why a repulsive form of energy known as the cosmological constant, which is accelerating the expansion of the universe, is several orders of magnitude smaller than predicted by the standard Big Bang model.

A different cyclic model relying on the notion of phantom energy was proposed in 2007 by Lauris Baum and Paul Frampton of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.[7]

Other cyclic models include Conformal cyclic cosmology and Loop quantum cosmology."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model

[Chillheimer]

I'm going to stick with simulation because other peoples' uninformed questions about who or what is controlling it or them should not affect the model.  It's pretty obvious that each person controls themselves.

Don't underestimate the reluctance of people towards theories because of "badly chosen wording".

But putting this aside, I really think "simulation" is actually wrong. First sentence about simulation at wikipedia:
Simulation is the imitation of the operation of a real-world process or system over time.
Imitation of a real world process.
That's were I see a major problem. There simply is no need to add this layer of unknown, unproven (and imho false) assumption.

same for "computer simulation":
A computer simulation (or "sim") is an attempt to model a real-life or hypothetical situation on a computer so that it can be studied to see how the system works
to be studied, model a real-life situation on a computer...

it's not just that people think like I described, it is a logical consequence of the definition of the used terms.

If (as youhn points out as well) it is the actual universe itself, computing itself, iterating as a huge fractal feedback-system, there is no need for the terms.
But I don't want to overly harp on about this

Have you read into Zuses Calculating Space? I'd love to hear your opinion on it and where you see parallels/differences to your theory.

As for the answer to those questions, it's most likely humans of the future who develop the simulation, as stated in the description.  The physics of the universe within the sim remain unchangeable, the physics cannot be manipulated.  It could not properly proceed otherwise.

--as stated in what description?--
Hm. And these humans of the future were the first simulators? so what is their universe made of?
what about causality?

what do you see as evidence for this?

(don't get me wrong, I like many parts of your ideas and deliberately pick the parts where I think there's open questions)

Your inter-universal conscious is an electromagnetic field using your physical body as an avatar and that field is serving as an avatar for the extra-universal conscious....an electromagnetic field that is YOU.  But the extra-universal you has access to the infinite and thus can access infinite possible options.  This brings the CONCEPT of infinity into the physical universe but not the actual OCCURRENCE of infinity.

Nice image.
Reminds me of talks about psychedelic experiences and the concept of entheogenic substances as a "shortcut" to to this "extra universal you".
Too bad that the topic is stigmatized and usually not discussed or studied without restrictions or drifting into illegality.
I found the short book "Being Human" by Martin Ball very insightful on this. Recommended read!

For instance, the famous "particle in a box" - if we do that calculation and make our box larger and larger, at infinity the quantization just disappears. Similarly, for a hydrogen atom, higher and higher energy states of a bound electron lie closer and closer together until they essentially behave classically. Once the electron has too much energy, it isn't bound at all any longer and resumes a continuous (though inherently imprecisely measurable) path.
The universe appears to be (but the debate isn't entirely settled) entirely unbounded. "Boundaries at infinity", as would be required for such a setting, don't have any effect at all on any close state. No quantization, no "voxelized" space-time.

If I understand that correctly the fractal view I described above regarding finite vs. infinite both being present in a fractal fits in there.

When you hear "fundamentally smallest scale" you shouldn't think of digital cameras with their fixed pixel-wise resolution but rather of the effective resolution that the cameras' optics will produce. There are no sharp jumps but rather any smaller details are completely washed out.

That is kind of what I mean. Using the term voxels in the initial post was misleading and just playiong around with numbers.

Our perception of the world seems quantized when looking very closely. extreme example: long exposures of hubble deep field, with just a few single photons arriving from whole galaxies
But that is just our perception, our current frame of reference. Our camera as you say.

The whole post was a good read, but this was a kind of aha-moment for me. This would mean smaller things than the planck length can exists, if I understand it correctly.

Yes, but not within our frame of reference, they are out of reach. (if I understand correctly).

How does time scale at these "zoom depths"? Do we have to look at smaller and smaller timeframes, in order to observe smaller and smaller sizes?

It's linked, the smaller the space the smaller the time intervals involved.

In general I don't really like the idea of the universe being a simulation. At the same time I do have some sentimental feeling for digital physics, but I do not believe the world is strictly digital as in 0 and 1 (or similar ON, OFF).

As written above, I think reality itself, the "big picture" might not be quantized into 0 and 1, but our perception of reality is. A single photon reaches you or it doesn't. That tiny spot in hubbles deepfield exists, or it doesn't. At least from your perspective.

Another angle. How would dark energy and dark matter look at the very small scales?

Even more than gravity, dark energy has no significant impact on small scales. Even within neighbouring galaxies it is too small too measure.

There is no separation between the computer, the program, the input and the output. The world computes itself from the initial state to whatever the logic of the smallest parts drives it to.

Wholeheartedly agree!
and to add a little more confusion: Would this make the universe deterministic? every action and each of your own decisions predestined from the initial conditions?
i personally don't think so and think this is connected to heisenbergs uncertainty principle. minute (and impossible to measure) differences at the "smallest" scales will blow up to a totally diffferent end result.

..
damn. these posts always get so long. now howard posted even more regarding my terminology problems.

I therefore propose that the term, "mainstream science", be replaced by, "prevailing psycho-social mindset of empiricism".

As much as I would like to have an alternative to "mainstream science", "prevailing psycho-social mindset of empiricism" might be correct, but soo un-catchy that it won't be used for sure. I have a hard time remembering it longer then 5 minutes
Sorry, I don't have a better idea.

there can be no condition that exists where "not universe" is possible. 

says who?
As I understand the concepts, multiverse and also the big bang theory have "not universe" embedded.
It's just not used often, because it makes little sense to speculate about something that we (very probably) will never be able to falsify.


The arbitrary and unwarranted restrictive effect of that specific mindset is well illustrated by the following.  Note how its persistence derailed open-minded exploration and has led to ever greater explanatory convolutions in order to avoid the obvious even as observational evidence accumulates which demands consideration of "not universe" as a rational component of the entirety of reality.

"In the 1920s, theoretical physicists, most notably Albert Einstein, considered the possibility of a cyclic model for the universe as an (everlasting) alternative to the model of an expanding universe. However, work by Richard C. Tolman in 1934 showed that these early attempts failed because of the cyclic problem:

according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, entropy can only increase.[1] This implies that successive cycles grow longer and larger. Extrapolating back in time, cycles before the present one become shorter and smaller culminating again in a Big Bang and thus not replacing it. This puzzling situation remained for many decades until the early 21st century when the recently discovered dark energy component provided new hope for a consistent cyclic cosmology.

I just have to throw in the bifurcation diagram here again, because it fits the "cyclic" universe idea so well. except that it's cycles of growing complexity, as with shapestacking in the mandelbrot-set.

phew. so much for today.

[kram1032]

It's not just that we cannot possibly measure distances smaller than roughly the Planck Scale: Remember, we have pretty tight control over physics these days. It's more fundamental than that. There is NO POSSIBLE physical process (in our current understanding) that could properly distinguish between them. It's not just imperceptible to us. Also to the involved particles!
Once stuff comes so close together as to inhabit basically the same space, the momentum of those particles becomes so insanely uncertain that it's very likely they shoot away at crazy speeds. It's not a lasting situation.
This is what Quantum Mechanics says anyway. But if you put stuff together this closely, you will potentially also have to think about General Relativity. And then you'll basically get a black hole center singularity. (Note, energy, momentum and relativistic mass are all linked to each other so if stuff somehow comes closer together than the Planck Scale without having been kicked apart by uncertain momentum before, you may get insane momenta and with them insane energy which in turn might be enough to get a black hole)
This is where experimentally confirmed physics as it currently stands just breaks down. From that point on you need new models like Super String Theory, but thus far nobody proposes an experiment to confirm any of that which we actually could plausibly build, and the maths is so tough, the area has lost quite a bit of momentum in recent years.
In fact, the relativistic idea is how the Planck Length arises in the first place. Any closer would cause a Schwarzschild Black Hole if you just naively combine Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity and hope it works. It's possible that this entire idea falls completely flat with what ever unified theory ends up working. It's simply the regime where all bets are off. It's the modern equivalent of Here Be Dragons - a white spot on a map. One we are still trying to fill in.
There actually are slightly different fundamental constants possible if you take slightly different starting assumptions. (I can't quite recall the details. It had something to do with calculating electron interactions in an electromagnetic force) - Do not think of the Planck Scale as a literal magical limit. The important thing is the order of magnitude. We expect new physics to show themselves rather clearly anywhere between like 10 - .1 Planck Lengths.

And then there are conformal ideas of gravity which have a certain property of scale-free-ness: In these you cannot apply a ruler out of thin air. You can only ever measure distances "relatively". Like, you can compare how many finger lengths your arm spans, or you can figure out how many hydrogen-hydrogen bonds span your finger, but any fixed value you put to it is just a convenience. "1 meter" here doesn't have any absolute meaning, but rather means, as of right now, "the distance light happens to travel in suchandsuch many ticks of an atomic clock".
If you bring this idea to a logical conclusion then there is actually no reason to believe that anything special should happen around Plack Scale. It's just another freely exchangeable unit of reference. - But to my knowledge, while such conformal ideas can be made consistent with General Relativity as we know it today, they also don't have any further evidence beyond that yet. At this point we are randomly (well, somewhat systematically) throwing paint at the wall and see what sticks. While being blind. So we are actually more like guessing what sticks and then checking whether what we already can see is at least consistent with our guesses. Eventually we'll design experiments that can actually distinguish many of these theories. And in fact, LIGO already ruled out a TON of ideas that had been thrown around because they would have needed very different observations:
- Gravitational waves do exist
- they have a certain shape
- they happen with a certain (surprisingly high) frequency
All three of those were able to rule out a variety of ideas. As we get more data, especially as we can pinpoint these mergers more closely once VIRGO also goes online, more theories will fall away as inconsistent with reality, and the remaining ones (which will still be way more than enough) can be focused on more carefully.

Finally I'm not quite sure what you mean with time-scale when measuring a length. The Plack Time is the time it takes a photon to travel one Planck Distance. This is an insanely short time, just like the distance is an insanely short distance.
But if you look at, say, the LIGO results, you'll find (and in fact I'm sure you've already heard) that gravitational waves just happen to be largely in the audible part of the spectrum. You can directly transform gravitational waves to audio waves and hear pretty much all their structure. The data you likely already heard wasn't sped up or slowed down (actually the original LIGO video featured an original-speed version and one sped up by an octave or so to get a clearer idea of the lower frequencies), it's actually at real-life speed.
These waves have insanely tiny amplitudes (way smaller than a proton diameter), but their frequencies are in the audible range. In so far I wouldn't expect the idea of a zoomed in timeframe to be particularly meaningful either way.

[anomalous howard]

Simulation is the imitation of the operation of a real-world process or system over time.
Imitation of a real world process.
That's were I see a major problem. There simply is no need to add this layer of unknown, unproven (and imho false) assumption.

same for "computer simulation":
A computer simulation (or "sim") is an attempt to model a real-life or hypothetical situation on a computer so that it can be studied to see how the system works
to be studied, model a real-life situation on a computer...

Studying the situation is exactly what humans try to do.  I do not see how assuming that we are doing so in a simulation would necessarily be a false assumption.

Have you read into Zuses Calculating Space? I'd love to hear your opinion on it and where you see parallels/differences to your theory.

Unfortunately your link did not work.  I have since found a translation and downloaded it.  I promise to go over it as time permits.  Thanks for the suggested reading.

--as stated in what description?--
Hm. And these humans of the future were the first simulators? so what is their universe made of?
what about causality?

It doesn't necessarily have to be humans of the future although that was the possibility I chose in my initial post here which is what I meant by "description".

Whatever or whoever would be responsible for the simulation would be doing so as a means of study...just as you say.

As I understand the concepts, multiverse and also the big bang theory have "not universe" embedded.
It's just not used often, because it makes little sense to speculate about something that we (very probably) will never be able to falsify.

A computer sim universe brings "not universe" into a model in a way such that there is a systemic interaction between universe and not universe.  It allows for extension of assumptions that might begin to better describe "not universe" instead of just ignoring it as an inaccessible quantity.

"In the 1920s, theoretical physicists, most notably Albert Einstein, considered the possibility of a cyclic model for the universe as an (everlasting) alternative to the model of an expanding universe. However, work by Richard C. Tolman in 1934 showed that these early attempts failed because of the cyclic problem: I just have to throw in the bifurcation diagram here again, because it fits the "cyclic" universe idea so well. except that it's cycles of growing complexity, as with shapestacking in the mandelbrot-set.

I think this is where you might be improperly inferring that the concept of fractal infinity produces actual interuniversal infinity.  The concept is never the real thing.

The following, unfortunately, is going to continue the trend of long posts that we seem to be stuck with...  It's one of the recent additions to the sim model:

Black Holes and Information Preservation (Hair)

Keeping in mind that The Universe is being considered by many cosmologists to be the result of a computer simulation, it would then be likely that a black hole acts as an information filter. Here I propose a black hole as a "data port".  Certain information will  be allowed to pass through for "collection" and "analysis" and other feedback purposes.
In the model I have proposed, each iteration contains changes that occur which are then "projected" forward into the next iteration producing the dimension of time that we experience and why E=MC2 without resorting to highly advanced mathematics.

https://www.facebook.com/anomalous.howard.3/posts/144743669360567

(or see: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/oct/18/einstein-relativity-science-book-review
from one of six titles vying for the 2010 Royal Society Prize for Science Books: "Why Does E=mc2?" by Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw

"Did you know that you're travelling at the speed of light? Not just you: your book, your chair, the room around you, your home. In fact, everything is moving at the speed of light.

Don't feel it? Don't worry, no one else did either until Albert Einstein redefined the substance of reality at the start of the 20th century. Neither Galileo, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell or Isaac Newton knew about the speed of light thing, despite laying the foundations for the insights that the Austrian patent-clerk-turned-physicist would eventually have.

Let me clarify. We are all moving at a speed "c" that happens to correspond with the speed of light as it moves through a vacuum in normal space. Except that our movement is through a 4D co-ordinate system called spacetime.")

Any information that is necessary to reproduce the physical contiguity within the next iteration must be held within the universe while information regarding "non-physical" aspects pass through the data port.

The "soft hair" now proposed for black holes is the information of the "physical" awaiting (it's only a "wait" of one Plancktime) the "unfolding" of the next iteration.

Any wave function that has undergone collapse out in The Universe gets translated and recoded by the "receptor" upon which the collapse occurred. This translation becomes recoded as an "effect".
The mechanism by which the transition itself from wave function to effect occurs becomes part of the information.  That encoding process of  collapse brings information through a series of electromagnetic wave form transitions through the nervous system and on to the brain.  One product of this becomes memory.

If your body is the receptor of a collapse an initial transition happens within the "person's" nervous system (as part of the Universe) within a framework of critical dynamics.  Transition information becomes part of each transitioned wave form's information as it is becomes what we call a perception. (You could call the sum of transition information a "motive". This would be like tracing a human action back to it's root cause, or motive, by tracking backward in that person's history to decode "why" that action was undertaken to begin with).

The transition information (the motive) is not information concerning the "physical" make-up of the universe so it IS NOT NECESSARY for the "physical" unfolding of the next iteration of universe. The transition information (motive) can pass through the data port.

How this is possible is summarized here:
From:
Viewpoint: Black Holes Have Soft Quantum Hair
"Strominger had an important insight in 2014 [4] while investigating a different problem. He realized that there are an infinite number of conservation laws that govern the scattering of gravitons—the elementary excitations in a quantum theory of gravity. Working with his students, Strominger realized soon thereafter that a similar result holds for electromagnetism [5]. Currently, he is collaborating with Hawking and Perry to apply this insight to black holes. In the new paper, the authors illustrate their ideas by considering electromagnetism in the presence of a black hole.
The key to their argument about black hole hair is provided by new conservation laws that generalize the usual notion of conservation of electric charge. The total charge in a region can be obtained by integrating the radial component of the electric field around a sphere surrounding the region. If no charge enters or leaves the region, its value is independent of time. Strominger’s generalization is based on integrating, over a sphere of infinite radius, the radial electric field weighted by an arbitrary function. It turns out [5] that this integral is still conserved. This provides an infinite number of new conserved quantities.

This observation connects to black hole hair in the following way. Using Gauss’ theorem, one can convert the surface integral describing the new conserved charge to a volume integral over all space. In the absence of black holes, the new conservation law simply means that this volume integral in the past is equal to the integral in the future. However, if black holes are present, the integral in the future must include a contribution over the black hole horizon.
If both gravity and electromagnetism are described classically, the contribution to the new charges coming from the black hole horizon must vanish. But Hawking, Perry, and Strominger argue that the situation is very different when electromagnetism is described quantum mechanically. To understand the difference, first consider the vacuum state and then add one photon. The result is a new quantum state with energy equal to the energy of the photon. As Strominger showed [5], if one takes the limit as the photon energy goes to zero (that is, the photon becomes “soft,” with vanishing energy), the result is a new state, which can be called a new vacuum because it has essentially the same energy as the original vacuum state. The first vacuum is turned into the second by acting with an operator that is just the quantum version of the new conserved charge.

The authors’ work now shows that acting with this same operator on a black hole horizon adds photons with essentially zero energy. These photons make up what they call the “soft hair” on a black hole. Since there are an infinite number of new charges, there are an infinite number of soft hairs that a black hole can support. Furthermore, the researchers demonstrate that when a charged particle falls into the black hole, it excites some of this soft hair. The exact conservation of the new charges implies that when a black hole evaporates, the information about the hair on the horizon must come out in the Hawking radiation.

It is important to note that this paper does not solve the black hole information problem. First, the analysis must be repeated for gravity, rather than just electromagnetic fields. The authors are currently pursuing this task, and their preliminary calculations indicate that the purely gravitational case will be similar. More importantly, the soft hair they introduce is probably not enough to capture all the information about what falls into a black hole. By itself, it will likely not explain how all the information is recovered when a black hole evaporates, since it is unclear whether all the information can be transferred to the soft hair. However, it is certainly possible that, following the path indicated by this work, further investigation will uncover more hair of this type, and perhaps eventually lead to a resolution of the black hole information problem."
https://physics.aps.org/articles/v9/62

[anomalous howard]

Have you read into Zuses Calculating Space? I'd love to hear your opinion on it and where you see parallels/differences to your theory.

I would have to say, that when you consider what I propose for black holes and that each galaxy is running as a subroutine with a feedback loop operating at Plancktime,
the only real difference is that my model allows for a mechanism of data input/output where the workings of physics in the universe is just as mechanistic as Zuse postulates but WE are not mechanistic in our range of possible responses to that physics.  (this point is made in that video of the dog I posted)  Otherwise we are very close.  Perhaps if Zuse had today's information about black holes available to him he might have arrived at a model much like my own.

I probably should add that the subroutine feature of my model can explain the homogeneity observed in surveys of space and why there is no specific direction from which a "big bang" occurs.  It also shows why every galaxy has a black hole at their center. This is why I prefer the term "unfolding".

It also explains why Tifft can make the statement, "Galaxies are separated in 3-D time, which we have misinterpreted as separation in space."
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-time-quantized-in-othe/

Other reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics

[anomalous howard]

 Seth Lloyd, professor of mechanical engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The book proposes that the universe is a quantum computer, and advances in the understanding of physics may come from viewing entropy as a phenomenon of information, rather than simply thermodynamics. Lloyd also postulates that the universe can be fully simulated using a quantum computer.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_the_Universe

In this video, starting at about the 17 minute mark, Lloyd explains a biological cell's nucleus in a way that shows it as a fractal re-expression of how I described the function of a black hole as a "filter" for information passing into the black hole/data port.
Right down to Hawking's "hair".

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/I47TcQmYyo4&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/v/I47TcQmYyo4&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1</a>

Then at 32 mins he explains how a 300 bit quantum computer will be able to run solutions for every particle in the universe simultaneously.

Then there's
http://spectrum.ieee.org/nanoclast/semiconductors/materials/quantum-dots-made-from-graphene-help-realize-their-promise-for-quantum-computing

I might as well also suggest the following free e-book:
http://www.freebookcentre.net/physics-books-download/Hacking-Matter-[PDF-212p].html

[anomalous howard]

Subroutines, Quantum Computing and "Spooky action at a distance"...Removing Some of the "Magic".

The following will be incorporated into "Musings..."
with background material drawn from the April 1985 Physics Today article by N. David Merman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Mermin

http://people.westminstercollege.edu/faculty/ccline/courses/phys301/PT_38(4)_p38.pdf

The article actually begins with a reference to Arthur C. Clarke's "Third Law":
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Here's the first paragraphs of the article:
______________________________________________________________
N. David Mermin
Quantum mechanics is magic

In May 1935, Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen published an argument that quantum mechanics fails to provide a complete description of physical reality. Today, 50 years later,the EPR paper and the theoretical and experimental work it inspired remain remarkable for the vivid illustration they provide of one of the most bizarre aspects of the world revealed to us by the quantum theory. Einstein's talent for saying memorable things did him a disservice when he declared "God does not play dice," for it has been held ever since that the basis for his opposition to quantum mechanics was the claim that a fundamental understanding of the world can only be statistical. But the EPR paper, his most powerful attack on the quantum theory, focuses on quite a different aspect: the doctrine that physical properties have in general no objective reality independent of the act of observation.  As Pascual Jordan put it Observations not only disturb what has to be measured, they produce it. ... We compel [the electron] to assume a definite position. ... We ourselves produce the results of measurement. Jordan's statement is something of a truism for contemporary physicists.
Underlying it, we have all been taught, is the disruption of what is being measured by the act of measurement, made unavoidable by the existence of the quantum of action, which generally makes it impossible even in principle to construct probes that can yield the information classical intuition expects to be there.  Einstein didn't like this. He wanted things out there to have properties, whether or not they were measured.

We often discussed his notions on objective reality. I recall that during one walk Einstein suddenly stopped, turned to me and asked whether I really believed that the moon exists only when I look at it."
______________________________________________________________

Subroutines, Quantum Computing and "Spooky action at a distance"...Removing Some of the "Magic".

One of the problems that Einstein had with his own theory is illustrated in his correspondence to Max Born.  Here's a quote from one of his letters also reproduced in the above article:

"That which really exists in B should...not depend on what kind of measurement is carried out in part of space A; it should also be independent of whether or not any measurement at all is carried out in space A. If one adheres to this program, one can hardly consider the quantum-theoretical description as a complete representation of the physically real. If one tries to do so in spite of this, one has to assume that the physically real in B suffers a sudden change as a result of a measurement in A.
My instinct for physics bristles at this."

In another letter:
"I cannot seriously believe in [the quantum theory] because it cannot
be reconciled with the idea that physics should represent a reality in time and space, free from spooky actions at a distance."

 The "spooky actions at a distance" (spukhafte Fernwirkungen) are the acquisition of a definite value of a property by the system in region B by virtue of the measurement carried out in region A."

At the time there were no computers let alone quantum computers.
In the youtube video I posted yesterday, Seth Lloyd (the "inventor" of quantum computing) explains how superposition allows for a qubit to represent both a 1 and a 0 at the SAME TIME.  I also linked to an article on graphene quantum dots which produce FOUR simultaneous quantum states.  (That's truly phenomenal imo)

A two state qubit can be made to READ AS just a 1 or just a 0 when the proper stimulus is applied to it.  Also explained...and shown in realtime in another video: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/zNzzGgr2mhk&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/v/zNzzGgr2mhk&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1</a>

So in a quantum computer running an integrated series of subroutines there can be a subroutine that is the qubit solution for "Moon".  Then there's the subroutine that is the qubit solution for "Human Avatar".  As both a simultaneous 1 and 0 the Moon solution relative to the Human Avatar solution only "reads out" FOR the Avatar when the Avatar requests it....or when the Avatar decides to apply the proper stimulus to the Moon solution.  The request (or "switch" to apply the proper stimulus for readout) is simply made by directing your eyes to it.  Until then (for energy efficiency reasons, I'm sure) the Moon Solution, as qubit, is only the PROBABILITY held in the qubit.

And this answers Einstein's question solving the "spooky action at a distance" conundrum.

Now you should be able to fully understand that this type of interaction, where YOU through a Human Avatar have total freedom as to what quantum solutions you would like to produce, requires that an interface with your avatar is established between that which is IN the computer (the rules of physics in a qubit potentiality of the solution for Universe) and YOU as an end-user OUTSIDE the computer.

When you try to measure the size of the universe....the solution returned is HUUUUUGE!!!!!  When in reality, the requested solution only reads out that way when you try to measure it (request it).  In it's unrequested state, the universe has no real size at all.  It's size is "unrequested".

[youhn]

The "spooky actions at a distance" is as much "spooky" as the following.

Take three persons, for example you, me and the other.
I take a piece of paper and write down "0" on the left, and "1" on the right.
Then the piece of paper is torn apart through the middle, leaving two pieces either with a "0" or a "1".
I mix up these papers, but hidden from sight (even my own).

Now I give you one piece, and you walk 10 meters away from.
The other receives the other piece of paper, and walks 10 meters in the other direction.
At this moment, you do not know if you're piece of paper has a "0" or "1" on it.
At the same time, there is no physical link between the two pieces whatsoever.

The magic is that when you reveal you're piece of paper,
everyone will certainly know that the other one MUST be different.
This is what "spooky" action at a distance is.
(it's not so much about space and distance, but more about space and time...)

You might say that the hidden part is the only "spooky" aspect of it.