ADVERTISEMENT
  About the SA Blog Network













Observations

Observations


Opinion, arguments & analyses from the editors of Scientific American
Observations HomeAboutContact

The Digital Cosmos: A Brief Reading List

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.


Email   PrintPrint



GeV Gamma Ray Emission Regions from NASA's FERMI telescopeDo the laws of physics emerge from the laws of information? Perhaps, according to two World Science Festival events I attended this weekend on the connection between computers and the cosmos. The first examined the insight that all the information about a three-dimensional world can be encoded onto a two-dimensional surface. Taking this notion to the extreme, we might imagine that the 3D world we inhabit is only a projection from a deeper reality, an ephemeral hologram that leaps off some cosmic film.

The second event considered whether information is itself the foundation upon which all else rests, the true firmament of the cosmos, deeper than atoms, quarks or even space-time itself.

As might be expected from mere 90-minute discussions, the events, though fascinating, left me thirsty for more. Here is a brief collection of outside reading for those of you who might feel the same way.

In 2003, Jacob Bekenstein wrote a feature for Scientific American called "Information in the Holographic Universe" (subscription required), which provides an excellent popular-level account of the notion that the entire universe might emerge from a two-dimensional surface. (The work builds on the 1997 article "Black Holes and the Information Paradox" [PDF link] by Leonard Susskind.) Beckenstein’s article really helped me to understand how two superficially distinct forms of entropy—thermodynamic entropy and information entropy—are in fact equivalent. My colleague George Musser also wrote a good post on this subject a few weeks ago as a preview to the World Science Festival event.

The idea that the universe is itself a computer—or, more suggestively, that the computer is the universe—extends back almost to the dawn of the information age. The German computer scientist Konrad Zuse was the first to suggest that the universe is being computed on a universal computer in Rechnender Raum, which was first published in 1969 [PDF link to English translation]. It was an idea ahead of its time. At the WSF event, Jürgen Schmidhuber, a professor of artificial intelligence at the University of Lugano in Switzerland (and intellectual descendant of Zuse’s) noted that after the publication of Rechender Raum, everyone thought that Zuse—who had already achieved legendary status in the computer science community for constructing one of the world’s first programmable computers, the Z1—had gone and lost his mind.

Yet the idea lived on, most notably in the work of Edward Fredkin, a polymath computer scientist who was also present on the panel. He was one of the three scientists profiled by Robert Wright in his book Three Scientists and Their Gods: Looking for Meaning in an Age of Information; the chapter on Fredkin and his ideas was excerpted in the Atlantic Monthly as "Did the Universe Just Happen?"

It took the legendary physicist John A. Wheeler to really bring the idea to prominence within the physics community. He coined the pithy summation it from bit, and laid out a research program to investigate the connection in his 1989 essay "Information, Physics, Quantum: The Search for Links."

In recent years the most prominent proponent of the digital universe viewpoint has been the mathematician and entrepeneur Stephen Wolfram, who argued in his 2002 book A New Kind of Science that simple programs underlie all natural phenomena. Scientists have been critical of Wolfram’s bookin some cases blisteringly so—at least in part because he ignores all the work on the topic that had come before him and implies that he is solely responsible for whatever insights might emerge out of the digital physics program. The physicist Steven Weinberg wrote an illuminating review of A New Kind of Science for the New York Review of Books, concluding that "I don’t think that his book comes close to meeting his goals or justifying his claims, but if it is a failure it is an interesting one."

Well, that’s all I’ve been able to digest in a few days. What am I missing? Where should I go next? Please include your suggestions in the comments.

 

Image of supernova remnant from NASA’s Fermi telescope by NASA Goddard Space Flight Center on Flickr.





Rights & Permissions

Comments 7 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. SAJP2000 9:19 pm 06/7/2011

    Perhaps most all of the works you mention owe their fundamental premise to Claude Shannon (I am stunned you haven’t mentioned him here) and his treatise "A mathematical theory of communication", whose work in the early-to-mid 20th century with Alan Turing first officially established Information Theory — essentially founding both digital computer and digital circuit design theory in 1937.

    No doubt Norbert Wiener’s origination of "cybernetics", a formalization of the notion of ‘feedback’ should also be credited for his contributions.

    Sadly, it seems Stephen Wolfram similarly fails to mention Shannon and Turing (and Weiner) and their place as the legitimate founders of Information Theory — curiously so, and much to his discredit.

    Link to this
  2. 2. alinahills 3:07 am 06/8/2011

    The post is very informative. It is a pleasure reading it. I have also bookmarked you for checking out new posts.

    <a href=" http://www.seobaba.com/seo-packages/seo-packages.html"&gt; Seo Packages </a>

    Link to this
  3. 3. Michael Moyer 12:13 pm 06/9/2011

    Thanks SAJP2000–you are of course entirely correct. The work of Shannon and Turing is at the root of all of this. Here’s a link to Shannon’s seminal 1948 paper: http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/ms/what/shannonday/paper.html

    Link to this
  4. 4. Omicron 12:36 pm 06/10/2011

    A very contemporary topic. A well written article.

    As science as a discipline, and the science of the mind-body-spirit seem to rapidly expand the frontiers of human knowledge, the borderlines of the "where" and the "how" of this knowledge and its origins are becoming increasingly blurred. Quantum level dynamics, seemingly ordered yet intangible constructs and the overlapping of previously distinct scientific domains are becoming the "new science" of a growing and better informed public at large. The greater implications of the digitally connected age.

    Some of these for your suggestion may be:

    A) The search for the origin of "Genius Intellect" in youths.
    How do they seemingly possess accurate knowledge of very complex ordered systems without ever having been exposed to such knowledge?

    B) What is the Genesis of Ancient Knowledge?
    How did the ancients evolve their complex knowledge of the Heavens and Earth that much of science is only just coming to grasp with today?

    C) The "Dream Gleem". Does the Universe actually speak to us during sleep?
    What part does evolved Dreaming play to add to the conscious awareness of knowledge?

    D) Knowledge DNA.
    Can Life itself inhierantly pass down new orders of evolved information?

    I feel these are all possibilities for which growing evidence is mounting. Coming into better focus through rigorous scientific pursuit across many disciplines.
    Although we are still far removed from scientific accepted truth. It may yet be that such truth may be just around the corner. If it is, it may be far stranger than we ever would’ve imagined.

    Link to this
  5. 5. voyager 10:30 pm 06/10/2011

    English major here. Not qualified to comment on the science involved, but noting what seems to be an interesting contradiction in Fredkin’s explanations of his universe-as-computer hypothesis, in the Atlantic article cited.

    He says apparent indeterminacy in quantum mechanics is a reflection of our present ignorance of principles that do in fact determine quantum behavior. Later in the article, he describes computer-generated cellular automata behavior as being impossible to predict. Why is the one legitimately unpredictable, and the other illegitimately random?

    Link to this
  6. 6. Wilhelmus de Wilde 9:45 am 06/11/2011

    if interested and if you want to spent some of your precious time please read my essay on FQXi, the contest is reality digital or analog, :
    http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/913
    Realities out of Total Simultaneity.

    keep on thinking

    Wilhelmus

    Link to this
  7. 7. verdai 8:27 pm 07/7/2011

    O please.
    you just need to move.

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Scientific American Special Universe

Get the latest Special Collector's edition

Secrets of the Universe: Past, Present, Future

Order Now >

X

Email this Article

X