Physicist seeks God, send info to . . .

[MMIX]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/mar/07/vlatko-vedral-interview-aleks-krotoski

Vlatko Vedral: "I'd like to explain the origin of God"

Quantum physicist Vlatko Vedral thinks he has found what the universe is made of: information.

My partner just linked me this piece with the comment, "its a bit simplistic" . . .

I love that when I watched the interview he describes himself as a physicist, therefore a simpleton. I also love any scientist who takes a wrecking bar to the whole idea of binary opposites. [as an anthropologist I didn't actually cheer when I heard that Claude Levi-Strauss had died but I am filled with anticipation for the destruction testing of his ideas about binaries; The Raw and the Cooked anyone?] No I am not an intellectual Luddite some of my most delicate work has been done with a wrecking bar, they are also good for finding cracks and gently prying til you let the light in. 

also - The first 10 mins or so of the video will feel quite homely to the locals round here


tl;dr version;- the universe is made of information and just needs a bit of uncertainty to power it . . .

[Kai]

Hm.

This fits rather well Emergence. On the other hand, not into the reductionism of physicists.

Also, a whole lot of this is metaphysics.

[Igor]

Seth Lloyd also seems to have come up with this idea. His idea seems to be more in the vein of traditional physics though. He agrees that the universe is a giant quantum computer, acting on information, which he sees as more fundamental than particles and forces. (He might be biased, seeing as he invented one of the first QCs) But I think he'd disagree with the more far-out claims that this guy makes.

Is the universe actually a giant quantum computer? According to Seth Lloyd—Professor of Quantum-Mechanical Engineering at MIT and originator of the first technologically feasible design for a working quantum computer—the answer is yes. This wonderfully accessible book illuminates the professional and personal paths that led him to this remarkable conclusion.

All interactions between particles in the universe, Lloyd explains, convey not only energy but also information—in other words, particles not only collide, they compute. And what is the entire universe computing, ultimately? "Its own dynamical evolution," he says. "As the computation proceeds, reality unfolds."

I have to say I prefer his version, but then I like my physics without loaded terms like love, faith and god.

[MMIX]

Seth Lloyd also seems to have come up with this idea. His idea seems to be more in the vein of traditional physics though. He agrees that the universe is a giant quantum computer, acting on information, which he sees as more fundamental than particles and forces. (He might be biased, seeing as he invented one of the first QCs) But I think he'd disagree with the more far-out claims that this guy makes.

Is the universe actually a giant quantum computer? According to Seth Lloyd—Professor of Quantum-Mechanical Engineering at MIT and originator of the first technologically feasible design for a working quantum computer—the answer is yes. This wonderfully accessible book illuminates the professional and personal paths that led him to this remarkable conclusion.

All interactions between particles in the universe, Lloyd explains, convey not only energy but also information—in other words, particles not only collide, they compute. And what is the entire universe computing, ultimately? "Its own dynamical evolution," he says. "As the computation proceeds, reality unfolds."

I have to say I prefer his version, but then I like my physics without loaded terms like love, faith and god.

Why do you say that terms like love, faith and god are "loaded"?? They are undoubtedly difficult to define and actually susceptible to many and variant definitions - but they also reflect a significant part of human experience. The contemporary thrust seems to be towards more "connected" research specialities like biophysics where the unnecessary barriers between areas of study and all the other political, economic, historic and B/S "disciplinary purity" are being breached. I have a background is in the behavioural sciences so my inclination is always towards a multi-disciplinary approach as offering a broader/?better choice of tools.
If physics existed in a vacuum then I would probably agree with you. Since it doesn't I will reserve the right to prefer Vedral's version, although that, of course, doesn't make it right.  I would just like to point out that Vedral is also quantum physicist, but that both his book and Lloyd's are geared to 'the educated man in the street'. You quote from the cover notes of Programming the Universe, if you have read it does it not contain some "non-scientific" material equatable with the love, faith and god. I've only read the blurb but it says that Lloyd "argues that divine intervention isn't necessary to produce complexity and life." - well  . .  there's god right there. I'd also like to know which of Vedral's claims are more "way-out" than Lloyd's 'the universe is a super-quantum-computer running the ultimate programme to demonstrate that the answer to everything is 42' [ apologies to Douglas Adams buffs]
I watched the youtube on Seth Lloyd . . .  now I am going to go and wash my mind out with soap, he's such a creepy geek that it left me feeling dirty, depressed and vaguely nauseous. This doesn't mean he is wrong, of course, just that he is a real freaky grotesque - and that laugh is going to haunt my nightmares for a long while

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KUMXe9gh7c&feature=related

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Hahahahaaa his laugh! I can't stop!

[MMIX]

Hahahahaaa his laugh! I can't stop!

IRL ITT