[mxplxxx (OP)]

Pretty sure Einstein would have got some of the same sort of replies

No.
He had logic and evidence.

But no proof! Hence the THEORY of Relativity.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

a solar system (and a universe) may be a type of Hydrogen Atom.

If that is your conclusion, then your life's work has been in vain.

Never in vain. It has been and still is "FUN". In any case, "May" is not a conclusion.

 In computer science all objects inherit a base object. So in my system-based computer universe, I can make the base object any type of object I please. So I figure, why do the entities that created our universe not think likewise. 

[Bored chemist]

Pretty sure Einstein would have got some of the same sort of replies

No.
He had logic and evidence.

But no proof! Hence the THEORY of Relativity.

using that word.png (224.06 kB . 400x345 - viewed 2089 times)

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

[mxplxxx (OP)]

There are lots and lots of implications from this. e.g. all systems in Reality may inherit a Hydrogen ion at their centre i.e. a solar system (and a universe) may be a type of Hydrogen Atom.

How does your system define other objects in solar system, such as planets' moons and rings, asteroids, comets, corona, solar flares?

Everything in 4dAbstractions is a type of 4dSystem. A 4dSystem is a spherical container that contains a type of 4dStar system at its centre and an unlimited number of 4dSubsystems.

With this scheme and a reasonably powerful Object Oriented Language (like Visual Basic),  I can create any type of system, and so can a Universal Language and run-time system like Reality.

The following is the bare bones code I would need to create the 4dEarth System which contains the planet Earth at its centre.

Code: [Select]

Namespace 4dEarth

      ' Earth.System - Earth the system (includes Earth and Moon and Asteroids)

Class System
    inherits  4dSystem


      ' Earth.Star - Earth the planet (is the centre of a Earth.System)
 
Class Star
    inherits  4dStar

          Subsystems(0) Earth.Cryosphere
          Subsystems(1) Earth.Hydrosphere
          Subsystems(2) Earth.Atmosphere
          Subsystems(3) Earth.Biosphere
          Subsystems(4) Earth.Lithosphere
          Subsystems(5) Earth.Magnetosphere
          Subsystems(6) Earth.Technosphere

    ' Earth.Subsystems - Moon and Asteroids

    Class Subsystems
         inherits 4dSubsystems

         Subsystems(0) Moon.System
         Subsystems(1) Asteroids.System

End Namespace

' create an Earth.System which includes planet Earth at its centre and Moon and Asteroids

Dim Earth as Earth.System = new Earth.System(Type:=EARTH, SubType:=COLLECTION, Star:=New Earth.Star(), SubSystems:=New Earth.Subsystems())



[Bored chemist]

I can create anything with this scheme (and so can a Universal run-time system).

But that is no reason to suppose that the universe does, in reality, act that way, is it?

[mxplxxx (OP)]

I can create anything with this scheme (and so can a Universal run-time system).

But that is no reason to suppose that the universe does, in reality, act that way, is it?

Just an educated guess. There seems to be no purpose to a system that seems designed to work on the principle of survival of the fittest except to add to the store of knowledge of a civilisation that has run out of ideas:)

[Bored chemist]

Just an educated guess.

And do you now understand why that's different from a theory?

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Pretty sure Einstein would have got some of the same sort of replies

No.
He had logic and evidence.

But no proof! Hence the THEORY of Relativity.

[ Invalid Attachment ]

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

The word "theory" seems to have many nuances, often dependent on the context in which it is used.

From https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/

"But what strikes the “systematic epistemologist” as mere opportunism might appear otherwise when viewed from the perspective of a physicist engaged, as Einstein himself put it, in “the critical contemplation of the theoretical foundations.” The overarching goal of that critical contemplation was, for Einstein, the creation of a unified foundation for physics after the model of a field theory like general relativity (see Sauer 2014 for non-technical overview on Einstein’s approach to the unified field theory program). Einstein failed in his quest, but there was a consistency and constancy in the striving that informed as well the philosophy of science developing hand in hand with the scientific project."

[Bored chemist]

When you have finished typing twaddle, theories still depend on evidence.
You have a conjecture.

Do you realise that the high level features of computer architecture which you describe only work because there's a lot of underlying code and that is explicit, not implicit.

What you describe as "The following is the bare bones code" only works because there's a hell of a lot of real code in the background.

Are you saying that underlying code for the universe exists somewhere?
Where?

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Are you saying that underlying code for the universe exists somewhere?
Where?

Thank you for those useful questions.

I rarely "say".

It seems to me that, if the universe is a type of computer, then somewhere there likely exists a run-time system that is separate from the observable universe.

My theories are mainly based on eureka moments which come from the intuition that arises from 50 years of software development. Only about 1 in 20 eureka moments turn out to be pragmatically worthwhile.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

What you describe as "The following is the bare bones code" only works because there's a hell of a lot of real code in the background.

Of course. So what?

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Do you realise that the high level features of computer architecture which you describe only work because there's a lot of underlying code and that is explicit, not implicit.

As a software developer, I deal mainly in high-level languages. Visual Basic is my favourite because of its readability and flexibility. How the languages are implemented rarely comes into it.

[Bored chemist]

. How the languages are implemented rarely comes into it.

It does if you are talking about the structure of the universe.

Of course. So what?

So you have to answer this question.

Are you saying that underlying code for the universe exists somewhere?
Where?

My theories are mainly based on eureka moments which come from the intuition that arises from 50 years of software development. Only about 1 in 20 eureka moments turn out to be pragmatically worthwhile.

You don't have a theory; you have a conjecture.
It's not even internally consistent because, if the "universe" is a high level language then that requires a low level language in which it is implemented.

But at least we can be grateful that you accept that your idea is based on something with a 95% failure rate.

[alancalverd]

if the universe is a type of computer,

It clearly isn't, so the rest of your conjecture is void.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

if the universe is a type of computer,

It clearly isn't, so the rest of your conjecture is void.

IYHO. "Clearly". Such a definitive opinion deserves a reason!

I would have thought the fact that the brain is a biological computer (think Neural Networks, DNA etc.) would make at least part of the Universe a computer.

 A computer is part of the universe and uses the physics of the universe to compute. I would have thought this screams out that the Universe could and does do the same.

The essence of a computer is that it processes abstractions. The universe is an abstraction hierarchy so this makes it likely that it is, in essence, a computer.

I have no trouble simulating a Universe in 4dAbstractions. I estimate sometime in the next 50 years we will be able to hook our brain up to a simulation of a universe and believe we are living in that universe.

Many other eminent physicists think the Universe is a computer.

https://thenextweb.com/news/physicists-working-with-microsoft-think-the-universe-is-a-self-learning-computer

http://cmsw.mit.edu/angles/2015/is-the-universe-actually-a-giant-quantum-computer/#:~:text=According%20to%20MIT%20professor%20Seth,and%20not%20even%20know%20it

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/confirmed-we-live-in-a-simulation/

https://studyfinds.org/universe-vr-how-to-test-if-were-living-in-computer-simulation/

etc. etc.

[Bored chemist]

Sorry, but you don't have a level of Computer Science knowledge needed for me to debate these issues with you.

Fair enough.
I usually go out drinking on Friday nights and come home... let's say it is just as well I'm not driving.

Perhaps, if we agree to debate it then, I will be down to a low enough level that you can understand me.
I see you have clarified your standing as a cutting edge expert in the matter.

Visual Basic is my favourite because of its readability and flexibility

In the mean time, unless you can prove that the universe actually IS a computer, your posts are empty guesswork.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Thanks for stopping by to dump another load pseudoscience.

Unfortunately, most physics seems to be based on Mathematics. Which leaves us with very little idea HOW things work. There is not a lot of mathematics in 4dAbstactions but there is a lot of software which leaves us with a good idea of HOW things work in a simulation of Reality. Pseudoscience? Who cares, if it works?

[Origin]

Pseudoscience? Who cares, if it works?

It doesn't work, it's gibberish.

[Bored chemist]

Pseudoscience? Who cares, if it works?

It doesn't work, it's gibberish.

Then why do you bother spending your time on it?

We should be asking you that.
Why do you waste your time posting pseudoscience here?

[alancalverd]

No, there are plenty of philosophy, politics, economics and religion forums for pseudoscience. This one is supposed to be about novel theories that have some relation to reality.