Why physics is relevant to computer science
I've been reading Wikipedia on quantum mechanics last days. Quantum mechanics is very mind blowing field, reading this is some kind of exercise for my imagination. The most interesting thing behind all this was philosophy. Knowing very little from this field I was a believer in multi-world interpretation and followed the view of Tegmark. With this background my personal philosophy can be described like this.
* Universe is some projection of multiverse.
* Multiverse is some formal system (computer program)
* There are some projections of universe that defines
time and space and allows observers to exist.
* There are possibly infinite enumerable set of multiverses for all possible computer programs.
* The fact that I myself observe this particular universe and this particular multiverse is just pure luck,
this universe is not any better then any other one. It is that kind of pure luck that me is me and not
my friend John. You can't choose your parents, you can't choose your universe.
* The fact that I perceive this particular dimensions as space and time is possibly the same kind of
luck and not anything else.
* The explanation of this particular selection of universe and dimensions is possibility.
I can collect enough information to become aware of the world and of myself only in the
universe with high uniformity. Uniformity gives high possibility of observer to become existent.
So far, so good. But physics is not about philosophy, it is about predictions. And this is what I want to state in this post.
There MUST BE BETTER INTERCHANGE OF RESULTS BETWEEN PHYSICS AND COMPUTER SCIENCE.
Physics and computer science are based on advanced, highly abstract math and they both DEALS WITH COMPLEXITY.
Computer science tries to find out how to describe complex behavior of big systems with as simple and concise laws as possible. And Physics tries to find out as simple and concise laws that would describe and predict complex behavior of real world objects. Computer science is the new birth of meta-physics it has directly opposite aim than physics.
Physics construct new math on demand to get concise description of particular phenomena. Computer science tries to find out a way to construct concise descriptions for all possible phenomenas.
Functional reactive programming is an attempt to create concise descriptions of systems with time and events. What I see is that most FRP implementations are based on classic Newtonian notion of time. As some kind of global variable. FRP tries to find understandability and conciseness of descriptions in understandability and conciseness of classical mechanics. But classical mechanics doesn't include mouse's cursor position. I think FRP should borrow notion of time from more recent physics and should describe systems without using any definition of time. Time is just a way to render description. Not part of description. I personally want to find a way to apply quantum physics (or relativists at least) point of view on the world to the description of some video game. I think that's the way to go for FRP. I don't have any evidence or results yet, but I feel that there is a strong connection between these two fields.
* Universe is some projection of multiverse.
* Multiverse is some formal system (computer program)
* There are some projections of universe that defines
time and space and allows observers to exist.
* There are possibly infinite enumerable set of multiverses for all possible computer programs.
* The fact that I myself observe this particular universe and this particular multiverse is just pure luck,
this universe is not any better then any other one. It is that kind of pure luck that me is me and not
my friend John. You can't choose your parents, you can't choose your universe.
* The fact that I perceive this particular dimensions as space and time is possibly the same kind of
luck and not anything else.
* The explanation of this particular selection of universe and dimensions is possibility.
I can collect enough information to become aware of the world and of myself only in the
universe with high uniformity. Uniformity gives high possibility of observer to become existent.
So far, so good. But physics is not about philosophy, it is about predictions. And this is what I want to state in this post.
There MUST BE BETTER INTERCHANGE OF RESULTS BETWEEN PHYSICS AND COMPUTER SCIENCE.
Physics and computer science are based on advanced, highly abstract math and they both DEALS WITH COMPLEXITY.
Computer science tries to find out how to describe complex behavior of big systems with as simple and concise laws as possible. And Physics tries to find out as simple and concise laws that would describe and predict complex behavior of real world objects. Computer science is the new birth of meta-physics it has directly opposite aim than physics.
Physics construct new math on demand to get concise description of particular phenomena. Computer science tries to find out a way to construct concise descriptions for all possible phenomenas.
Functional reactive programming is an attempt to create concise descriptions of systems with time and events. What I see is that most FRP implementations are based on classic Newtonian notion of time. As some kind of global variable. FRP tries to find understandability and conciseness of descriptions in understandability and conciseness of classical mechanics. But classical mechanics doesn't include mouse's cursor position. I think FRP should borrow notion of time from more recent physics and should describe systems without using any definition of time. Time is just a way to render description. Not part of description. I personally want to find a way to apply quantum physics (or relativists at least) point of view on the world to the description of some video game. I think that's the way to go for FRP. I don't have any evidence or results yet, but I feel that there is a strong connection between these two fields.