- #1
vectorcube
- 317
- 0
The following is something i read, and attempt to reproduce. I made no claim for originality. For anyone that wants the title of the book, and page number. I will find it, and post it. ( I remember the author is an adjunt professor at rockefeller university)
The universe U is a computer. Under this analogy, the laws of nature is the software, and stuffs( matter, energy, space-time, particles) are the hardware.
Suppose a creature( ie: human) C in U( universe) found this ultimate law L( the laws of nature), such that L is the solfware of U.
Claim 1: The The intelligence of C constraint the possible form of the laws of nature.
The claim is that the intelligence of C to attain(found) L constraints the possible form of L. That is, L cannot be too complicated for C to find.
Claim 2: the creature needs to be sufficiently smart to obtain the laws of nature.
Suppose C is very smart, but to attain L. C needs to be sufficiently smart to found L. Therefore, there is a lower bound on how smart C needs to be to attain L.
The universe U is a computer. Under this analogy, the laws of nature is the software, and stuffs( matter, energy, space-time, particles) are the hardware.
Suppose a creature( ie: human) C in U( universe) found this ultimate law L( the laws of nature), such that L is the solfware of U.
Claim 1: The The intelligence of C constraint the possible form of the laws of nature.
The claim is that the intelligence of C to attain(found) L constraints the possible form of L. That is, L cannot be too complicated for C to find.
Claim 2: the creature needs to be sufficiently smart to obtain the laws of nature.
Suppose C is very smart, but to attain L. C needs to be sufficiently smart to found L. Therefore, there is a lower bound on how smart C needs to be to attain L.
Last edited: