
What Is Ultimately Possible in Physics? - jackchristopher
http://www.stephenwolfram.com/publications/recent/fqxi09/
======
cromulent
Some of the other essays in the competition are worth a look.

<http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/category/31416>

~~~
chrischen
Hey thanks for the link. I actually read one other article about the _ultimate
velocity_ and whether or not it exists.
<http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/548>

I left a comment (by Chris C.) about his interpretation of time, but having
never finished a class on relativity (yet), I'm hoping some physicist can
examine my comment because I seriously did pull most of my conjectures out of
my butt while I was writing it. But it makes sense based on what I knew.

------
motters
Wolfram seems to reference himself a lot.

~~~
ced
Oy, he's writing an essay on some of the ideas in his book, NKS. _Of course_ ,
he'll refer the interested reader to the relevant chapters.

I thought it was well written; it delves deep on the "universe as a giant
Turing Machine" perspective.

------
mitko
Corrolary 1: We can never prove that we are not in the Matrix.

~~~
human_v2
We lack sufficient evidence to prove that we reside in a Matrix-like
construct. Pending evidence, we shall continue believing that we do not live
in such a construct.... though the line between physical reality and virtual
reality become blurrier every day.

~~~
gnaritas
> We lack sufficient evidence to prove that we reside in a Matrix-like
> construct.

I'm not sure we even have sufficient evidence to suggest it, let alone prove
it.

~~~
glymor
Have a look at the Simulation Argument <http://www.simulation-argument.com/>.

Crude synopsis: if it is possible to create such an simulation then the
probability that we in one is the number of possible simulated universes (v.
large) vs the number of real universes (1) ie high probability that we are
within a simulation.

~~~
rosser
I've always heard that expressed as the Simulation Paradox: either full-
fidelity simulations, a la The Matrix, are impossible, or we're already in
one.

~~~
gloob
How is that paradoxical?

------
human_v2
What is possible? Everything. It just depends on what level we are able to
effectively manipulate the universe. Suppose for a moment that the universe is
comprised of 'bits' at the very smallest possible scales. We do not currently
have direct (root) access to these bits, so we must manipulate them from
within the system. Because our universe is NP-complete, given enough control
over these universal bits, anything that is thinkable is possible. Will we
ever be able to control these bits? It remains to be seen, but I should think
so eventually.

~~~
ars
You should actually read the article.

And, please look up NP-complete, because I don't think you know what it means
(as opposed to just NP).

~~~
nostrademons
If the universe is NP-complete, then P = NP.

Proof: universe = 42 (Adams 1978). 42 can be computed in O(1) time. Therefore,
universe is in P. If one problem in the set of NP-complete problems is in P,
they are all in P. Therefore, P = NP.

