Algorithmic information theory and the existence of a Unified Field Theory

In summary, the complexity of an object is defined by the size of the smallest Turing machine program capable of computing it. A "random" object is one with an algorithmic complexity equal to its actual information content. Studying this gave me a somewhat frightening thought. It can be assumed that the universe is the only logical solution to some unknown problem, and that it is algorithmically random. Therefore, a unified field theory wouldn't exist. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the purpose of a unified theory and the meaning of algorithmic information theory, but I thought I'd post this and see what others think. Ive never personally heard of this IT method of thinking about physics, so let's say we had a mathematical algorythm such
  • #1
lanman
8
0
I have recently been studying Gregory Chaitin's "algorithmic information theory" for a school project. It describes the complexity of mathematical objects by the size of the smallest Turing machine program capable of computing them (in bits). It also defines a "random" object as one with an algorithmic complexity equal to its actual information content (ie., it cannot be computed).

Studying this gave me a somewhat frightening thought. It can be assumed that the universe is the only logical solution to some unknown problem. Wouldn't that also mean that it is also the simplest possible solution? That would mean that it is algorithmically random, and cannot be described with laws. Therefore, a unified field theory wouldn't exist. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the purpose of a unified theory and the meaning of algorithmic information theory, but I thought I'd post this and see.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Ive never personally heard of this IT method of thinking about physics, so let's say we had a mathematical algorythm such as addition of two 2 bit numbers (0-2) you would find out the bit size of the operation and that would somehow correspond to its complexity?
 
  • #3
It's very possible that no unified theory exists, but science simply can't operate under that assumption. Whether we end up unifying or not, our quest for unification furthers our understanding of the universe we inhabit. We can clearly see that the universe can be at the very least approximated very accurately with laws, and so heading towards our possibly unattainable goal of understanding everything leads us to more accurate and farther-reaching approximations.

So my conclusion? Maybe, but it only matters philosophically.
 
  • #4
lanman said:
It can be assumed that the universe is the only logical solution to some unknown problem. Wouldn't that also mean that it is also the simplest possible solution?
Unique does not imply simplest, but one would think so according to Occam's Razor.

That would mean that it is algorithmically random
... However simplest does not mean random. On the contrary, of simple laws would provide such a complex output as the universe then this would mean that the laws are NOT random since their size (in bits) is strictly less than what they can construct.
 
  • #5
The "simplicity" referred to in Occam's Razor is more closely related to the number of free parameters in a theory. For instance, we could create a "complicated" theory with an infinite number of free parameters, and adjust these parameters to account for what we see exactly. We may not even need all of the parameters to be specified uniquely in order to match observations: this is equivalent to a purely "random" theory that identifies all observable phenomena with a random variable with a range of outcomes, and accepts whatever happens as being one of many alternatives. The laws of the universe effectively place constraints on the set of allowed "alternatives" to what actually happens. The "Occam ideal" theory is one that predicts the fewest unobserved phenomena (i.e. the fewest alternatives), and which makes no false predictions.
 
  • #6
"God's Algorithm" or His solution from chaos to order (to the creation of our universe) was discovered by Kent State Math students (fairly recently) to be 20. That is the number of moves He had to make. This is not God (Himself) - it is His SOLUTION to a problem. The students used massive computer power and a 3"x3" Rubik cube ;-) to figure it out.

It would be interesting to see if an octrahedron gave the same results, i.e., the "Flower of Life" (Wikipedia...scroll down). Once formed correctly, it begins spontaneously to spin.

I believe His/our universe is infinite. (I acknowledge the possiblility of multiple universes also.)

I disagree with Cosmographer George Gamov (University of Colorado years ago - now deceased) who believed that the "primeval atom" was NOT an "ultimate beginning" but "merely a state of maximum contraction of a universe that had previously existed for an eternity of time."

I believe a Primeval hadron particle (not an atom) DID/DOES exist and was/is responsible for creation. Yes, a lone proton. Yes, 2 up quarks and 1 down quark held together with strong forces and a weak force. This is a "trinity" of sorts.

Big Bang...Big Crunch (mass with energy only remaining)...Big Bang...White hot "hole" singularity to crunch...black cold "hole" singularity. Well...we might equate that with the "Yin-Yang" symbol!

We will know more when radio astronomy tells us if the galaxies (seen on Earth as they were 5-6 billion years ago) are close together. If they are, that will be "proof" that there was indeed a "primeval" something that triggered evolution versus a "steady state universe".

OR...

Does anyone (besides me) wonder if the universe is actually shaped like a Klein bottle or 2 Klein bottles i.e., "Endless Universe" (see the animated cover on the internet)?

Evolutionary hypothesis vs steady state universe OR...could we not have initially EVOLVED from SOMETHING into a steady state universe in which the laws of conservation are upheld?

BTW...this IS all about 1's and O's (straight lines and circles).

Think about this:

For behold, My imaged universe is ***mirrored*** to infinity;
it is repeated to the endless end;
yet there are but multiples of three in all My universe.
And again I say to thee,
***two of those very three are naught ***but My imaginings,

for My Trinity is but

One.

(TSOL p. 138)

(TSOL refers to the “Secret of Light” by Walter Russell)


Also keep in mind what Gaudi said, i.e., "The straight line belongs to man, the curved line belongs to God."

Ancora Imparo! (Translation: I am still learning!)

P.S. Curious "Chaitin's constant" is the OHM symbol ;-) which = omega = end/halt. Remember "He" is the alpha AND omega (or aleph and tau/tav in the Phoenician alphabet). Alpha-omega-alpha-omega-alpha...no need to worry!
 

1. What is algorithmic information theory?

Algorithmic information theory is a branch of computer science and mathematics that studies the properties of information and how it can be measured and processed. It focuses on the fundamental question of how much information is contained in a particular piece of data and how efficiently it can be compressed and transmitted.

2. What is a Unified Field Theory?

A Unified Field Theory, also known as a Theory of Everything, is a theoretical framework that aims to explain all physical aspects of the universe in a single set of equations. It seeks to unify the four fundamental forces of nature: gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear force, and weak nuclear force, into one comprehensive theory.

3. How does algorithmic information theory relate to the concept of a Unified Field Theory?

Algorithmic information theory plays a crucial role in the development of a Unified Field Theory by providing a mathematical framework for understanding and quantifying the information content of physical systems. It helps to identify the underlying patterns and structures that govern the behavior of the universe, which can then be used to formulate a unified theory.

4. Is there currently a Unified Field Theory in existence?

No, there is currently no complete and universally accepted Unified Field Theory. Many physicists and mathematicians continue to work towards this goal, but it remains a major challenge in the field of theoretical physics. Several proposed theories, such as string theory and loop quantum gravity, have made progress towards unifying certain aspects of the universe, but a truly unified theory is yet to be achieved.

5. Why is the existence of a Unified Field Theory considered important in the scientific community?

The existence of a Unified Field Theory is considered important because it would provide a deeper understanding of the fundamental laws governing the universe and potentially lead to new technological advancements. It would also help to bridge the gap between quantum mechanics and general relativity, two highly successful but incompatible theories, and potentially resolve some of the unanswered questions in physics, such as the nature of dark matter and dark energy.

Similar threads

  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
11
Views
388
Replies
0
Views
228
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
5
Views
999
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
0
Views
407
Back
Top