# Algorithmic information theory and the existence of a Unified Field Theory

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.

Related Other Physics Topics News on Phys.org
Ive never personally heard of this IT method of thinking about physics, so lets 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?

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.

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.

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.

"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).

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!