Tuesday, May 30, 2017

What is the shape of the universe?

Curvature of the universe seems flat but that just means its curvature is uniform.
Visible universe radius seems 13.7 billion years which is equivalent to 46 billion light years when expansion of the universe also considered.
All directions we look, start of the big bang (singularity?) is the border of the universe (which is a border in time).
The simplest geometry for the universe would be the surface of a sphere, but instead of 2 dimensional space curved in third space dimension, it is 3 dimensional space curved in time dimension.
(This means curvature of the universe can actually be calculated!)
Even though universe is physically similar from any point inside of it, from an observer point of view from anywhere in the universe,
it is like the observer and the point of big bang are located at the opposite poles of a sphere.
(Light rays sent in any direction would converge on the (same) big bang point at the other pole of the sphere.)
(But if so why Cosmic Microwave Background is not the same in all directions? It maybe explained by CMB origin is some time later than the big bang origin. That means CMB is like a circle around the big bang (pole) point. So light rays originated from the observer pole would hit the CMB circle at different points.
(Also density of the universe along each light ray could be different. Meaning CMB could be actually same in all directions.))
Also if the shape of the universe is really as described above,
that means size of the visible universe and size of whole universe must be actually equal!

Sunday, May 28, 2017

Future of Computers

I do not know what the future of computer world actually be like but I have a bunch of ideas about what would be the best.
What should be the future of computer world?
Physically they keep getting smaller and/or more capable.
Speed and memory keep getting increased.
Graphics and networking keeps getting better.
(But Moore's Law ending?)

16, 32, 64,...-core (Network-On-A-Chip) processors?
I think number of processor cores should be increased as much as possible.
It is true that not all software could take advantage of it but there are plenty of computing tasks which are what is called embarrassingly parallel.

128-bit, 256-bit,... processors?
I think going beyond 64-bit processors would also help computers to get faster and faster.
There are always plenty of tasks a processor do which can be done faster by processing more bytes at the same time.

I think future of graphics cards should be a standard (voxel-based?) real-time (3d) ray tracing GPU.
(Just like sound cards became standard (after reaching stereo CD quality?).)

Optical processors/computers?
(Will most computers become optical someday?)

Quantum computers?
If quantum computers become common and cheap someday, can they replace all other computers?
I think they look like more fit for (hard) problem solvers than general purpose computers.
If so they may always stay separate than general purpose computers and/or they may become coprocessors in all computers.

ANN (Artificial Neural Network) coprocessors?
(Back in the 90s computers had separate math coprocessors (and/or DSP?).)
I think it is a good idea to add ANN coprocessors to computers to handle tasks which require human-like learning.
How about also adding Genetic Algorithm and/or Simulated Annealing coprocessors? (A quantum coprocessors could do both?)

How about creating standard RISC instruction sets for 8/16/32/64...-bit processors and be done with it?

What is the ultimate CISC processor? picoJava?
picoJava-like special processor design for each common programming language?
(FPGA coprocessor that can switch to any (high-level) language anytime?)

What should be the future of programming languages?
I think expressiveness is the most important characteristic of a programming language.
(I had read implementing the same algorithm in Python requires typing about 1/6 of number of characters compared to C++/Java.)
I think the most advanced programming language is the one that is closest to pseudocode.

Can AI replace programmers?
I think not. But I think AI can help a lot to programmers someday.
Imagine a programmer writes pseudocode and AI tries to convert it to a software in any target programming language.
Imagine AI analyses pseudocode and asks programmer to clarify anything that looks unclear.
Imagine AI and programmer working together to debug software.

Sunday, May 21, 2017

Is mathematics invention or discovery?

I think although natural numbers and few basic kinds of geometry, basic polynomials could be seen as inventions, on the other hand, real/complex/quaternion/octonion/sedenion numbers, decimal/hexadecimal/binary/octal number systems,
infinite family of arithmetic operations (addition, multiplication, power, tetration, ... and their inverses), fractal geometry, prime numbers etc all look like discoveries.
I think evidence for discovery is much more than evidence for invention but ultimately it maybe impossible to prove either side of the argument.
I think math is discovery and so math has its own existence but it is truly an abstract existence.
If math is an abstract existence then could any mathematical objects come into real existence by itself?
I think not.

Is mathematics infinite (when trivially infinite stuff taken out)?
For example it is trivial that each type of polynomial has infinite degrees (and dimensions (number of unknowns)) but is the total number of non-trivially different kinds of polynomials infinite?
What if we assume all kinds of possible polynomials as just one part of math?
Are the total number of such parts of math infinite?

Is Physics infinite?
In other words, how many non-trivially different universes mathematically possible that could support life/(human-like) intelligence?
I think it is obvious that if we change number of dimensions of the universe and found that universe could support life/intelligence
that universe must be counted as a non-trivially different universe
but what if we change one of basic constants of physics just a tiny bit, should we count that as a non-trivially different universe also? If not, then how much difference (as a percentage maybe)
for which basic constant of physics should be counted as a non-trivially different universe?
And all such different universes, which still following laws of physics of this universe, are the only possibilities?
What if we allow any kind of physical laws? How many non-trivially different sets of physical laws (for a universe that could support life/intelligence) possible?
(Of course, is it even theoretically/practically possible to mathematically determine if a given set of physical laws for a universe could support life/intelligence (when using computer simulations for experimentation included)?
How we could test if any given universe (set of physical laws) could support life and/or intelligence?
There is a an idea in computer science for testing equivalency.
For example it is known that all kinds of (completely different looking) NP-complete problems are actually equivalent because it is known how each one can be converted to one of the others.
Also it is known all kinds of theoretical computers are equivalent because all can be converted to a (Universal) Turing Machine.
Can we use the same idea for testing if any given universe is equivalent to our universe?
And if a universe is equivalent to ours, would not it mean that universe could also support life and intelligence?
Also there maybe other ways to test a universe for equivalency:
If we had a computer simulation of a (simplest) kind of life (living cells) then we could try to convert that simulation to use the physical laws of any given universe.
If we had a computer simulation of a (human-like) AI then we could try to convert that simulation to use the physical laws of any given universe, also.
And if we find that each simulation still works, would not it mean that universe could also support life and intelligence?
Also if what we trying to convert are computer simulations, what if we just design a (physical) computer in each universe we want to test? Wouldn't that be enough?)

Is computer science infinite?
(How many real/theoretical non-trivially different computer designs (hardware/software) possible?
Are all have equal power/ability (which is universal calculation)?)

Is chemistry infinite? (How many non-trivially different elements/molecules/chemical reactions possible?)

Is biology infinite? (How many non-trivially different species possible?)

I think, in a similar way, we could ask if any given science is infinite or not.
If any given science is infinite, is that mean humanity can never understand it as a whole?

Tuesday, May 9, 2017

WHAT IS ARROW OF TIME?

I had read that laws of physics are symmetric in time.
If so then why we always see time moves forward?
I have the impression that most physicists think arrow of time must be caused by entropy.
Because it seems generally entropy is always increasing in the universe.
I know that entropy is a measure of disorder and it seems increasing the temperature of any gas/liquid/solid increases its entropy.
If so can we say increasing temperature of anything must be slowing down time for that thing?
(Can we try to measure slowing of time by keep heating a transparent gas and keep measuring speed of light when light passing in that gas?
Or are there other kinds of systems we can use as clock when getting heated up?)
My guess is answer is no that time would not slow down with increasing temperature.

Could there be another explanation for arrow of time?
If we are moving forward in time what keeps us from moving backward in time?
Is it Grandfather Paradox (which must apply to anything traveling backwards in time)?
Or is it what is called causality (cause and effect)?
(I think Grandfather Paradox is just another description of causality or more like a special case of it.)
I think causality is the real reason why we cannot move backwards in time, and causality itself is the arrow of time.
So I think if any physical system/experiment can break causality, then there will be something moving backwards in time in there.

Sunday, May 7, 2017

TIME TRAVEL

Is time travel really possible?

I think science says time travel to future is possible but to past is more likely not possible.

I think traveling to past would break causality (which seems one of foundations of reality around us)
because of the Grandfather Paradox (which should be true even for subatomic particles; not just humans).
I think this is also called Cosmic Censorship (preventing events out of causality from happening).
But I also had read about some quantum particle experiments which could be interpreted as future events can have an effect in the past.
I don't know enough about quantum mechanics to fully support that interpretation but I think it is possible.
I had also read that anti-particles could be interpreted as particles moving backwards in time.
I have the same thought on that interpretation also.

We could also consider what would happen if we traveled to the past anyway.
I think first of all we could be creating a Butterfly Effect on the weather which would change all future weather of our world, over time.
Think about how many wars in history won by weaker side because of the bad weather.
(I had read Mongols who conquered China tried twice to conquer Japan but failed because of the bad weather (a typhoon?).
Napoleon failed at conquering Russia because of the bad winter?)
Also think about how different weather would change history of traffic accidents and/or crimes, even daily routine of countless people.
I had read a counter argument against Butterfly Effect which was saying most (small scale) atmospheric disturbances actually would get dumped down.
If true then what scale disturbances do not cause Butterfly Effect must be determined, to know how we could preserve to future history, if we traveled to past.

Also I think there maybe psychological and/or sociological counterparts to Butterfly Effect (on weather).
Can we see daily thought history of each person like a dynamical system similar to an atmospherical system?
If we change daily thought history of a person in the past, would that can change whole future daily thought histories of that person?
If so, can that change propagate to other people and eventually to all humans of the future?
How about creating sociological disturbances like starting a new fashion, new words/expressions of language?
How about creating scientific and/or technological disturbances like bringing advanced knowledge/tech from the future?
I think Butterfly Effect is much more general than most people would estimate.
Which means traveling to the past would be very risky if we want to preserve our own history.

Time travel to the future on the other hand seems okay for causality.
Relativity says if a spaceship can approach speed of light then time would slowdown for the ship and anyone inside of it.
That means anybody inside of the ship would age slower.
But I think by far the most practical way to travel to future would be suspended animation.
When all biological processes inside an organism slowdown that organism would age slower naturally.
It seems there are many organisms on earth already can do it.

I think it is also interesting that there are even religious stories about time travel to the future.
One of them is "Seven Sleepers" in Christianity and Islam.
Another is the story of a prophet(?) in Judaism/Islam(/Christianity?) who "slept" for decades and came back to his town/city.

Thursday, May 4, 2017

A COMPARISON OF UNIVERSE IDEAS

IMHO:
Science says there is this universe but maybe there are others.
Judaism and Christianity say there is this universe we live and there is another where there is God, Heaven, Hell, Angels, Demons.
I think they also imply the other universe is on top of this one.
Islam says there are seven universes, starting with this one and ending with which there is God, Heaven, Hell, Angels.
I think it also implies this universe is bottom and the second one is on top of this one and so on.
I think for all three religions it either could be spherical/cubic (?) universes on top of each other or it could be spherical/cubic (?) concentric universes one inside another.
I think all three religions also say there are doors (gateways) between each universe guarded by angels.
I think Judaism and Christianity say God created everything and now watches from Heaven.
I think Islam says God both watching from Heaven but also God is nowhere.
Islam says space and time are creations of God just like everything else and God does not need them to exist.
Christianity says God created man in his own image.
Islam says God does not look like any of God's creations and moreover God does not have any shape or size and does not have any gender.
Islam says God actually makes everything happen (down to the smallest scale).
Islam says if God stopped (even for an instant), everything in existence would disappear to nothing (in an instant).
(Which is I think kind of a similar description to a computer simulation.
I had also read some muslims believed/believing, everything in existence is like dream (imagination?) of God.)

Monday, May 1, 2017

ON THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION


IMHO:

I think I read enough about theory of evolution so far to understand its basic ideas at least.
It says new species evolve from their common ancestor over time through random mutations and natural selection by their environment conditions as they live.
The ones which show more success against environmental conditions get more chance to pass on their genes to future generations.
(I had also read a translation of the book The Selfish Gene.
I think the basic idea was the genes in each living creature doing everything they can to pass on to the next generation.
It seemed to be implying the genes are so smart which did not make sense to me. I did not do further research on it.)

It seems all living creatures in nature want to live as much as possible as long as conditions do not get too bad, at least.
Even single celled organisms seem trying to run away from dangerous adversaries or even trying to fight back if they have to.
I am guessing some of them would even work together to attack or defend if we consider what happens when an animal get sick for example.
How can they do these seemingly complex behaviors without any kind of brain?

But if we supposed to take theory of evolution as a scientific fact/law,
should not we ask if it is proven scientifically or not?
What is the proof for theory of evolution I do not know.
I did not actually try to find out so far either really.
I read many articles on biology over the years like on Scientific American, Popular Science, and some other popular internet science tech websites which all seem to accept evolution without questioning.
I think what is exactly considered as the proof is the fossil records, which seem to indicate as we go from oldest living organisms to newer ones they go from single celled organisms to multi-celled organisms and they go more and more complicated.
Also there are what it looks like older version never version of similar organisms in different layers of ground often in the same location.
Isn't this proof enough?
Not to me at least IMHO.
I think it could also be that God (assuming exists) chose to do it in stages.
(Or it could be an alien race?
But then we must face the question how those aliens came to life and started to evolve exactly?
Was theirs same kind of evolution as ours or not? If same then that would lead to an infinite loop of logic questions and answers.
Which is something could we accept as the answer? IMHO no.)
Maybe God wanted to it in a similar way to geoengineering a whole planet (after creating the universe in a similar step by step method).
Why not create everything all at once instantly?
Which maybe possible for God, isn't it?
If it was not possible then still God would be exist (and still would be powerful enough for us), isn't it?.
And it was possible then why not create the universe and earth all at once?
I think it is also still possible God just made a decision and chose to create the universe and earth in stages.
If so then whether that decision make sense for us (or not) maybe irrelevant from God's point of view, who knows?

Are there any other proof candidates for evolution?

I think everything else could also be explained by adaptations of organisms to their environmental conditions.
I think viable offspring rule is the main difference between each species.
Which seems to me more compatible with design idea than natural occurrence.
Imagine the hardships we run into when trying to combine computer software which we created, for example.
Both combining complex software and machines seems to be requiring a new design (to create a more complex machine).
 
I think explaining how exactly chemicals and conditions existed in early earth started life would be a good proof for evolution
(Of course any such explanation would need to be repeatable by experiment to be scientifically accepted.)
(I think a physically realistic (atomic scale) simulation would also be acceptable at least for smart people.
Besides of showing how life could started, how about making atomic scale simulations of any kind of living cells or single celled microorganisms on earth?
Of course we would expect those simulated cells to behave same way as the real ones to be sure of accuracy of the simulation.)

There was a news about creating artificial life sometime ago.
I think the procedure was replacing the whole genome of a living cell with an artificial genome.
How about a completely artificial cell that made from completely artificial parts?
Without that, would not questions could still linger around?

Another scientifically acceptable proof would be finding any kind of alien life even in microorganism level.
It looks like decades of search did not find any signs of alien life so far.
Will it ever be found? Who knows for certain really? Do we have a proof for it or just opinions?

I also think yet another definitive proof could be finding a half-human species on earth.
Something similar to Big Foot or Yeti for example, because they appear to be close to half-human creatures from supposed sightings and stories.
If evolution was true I would expect to see all kinds of half-this half-that creatures to the point of a continuum of species.
And also would expect all kinds of different individuals inside each species currently trying new abilities, limbs, organs etc.
(For example, I think there are individual genes (or groups of few) controlling how many arms, legs, how much muscle etc.)
Instead it looks like there is always a big barrier between all species preventing viable offspring.
Would not make more sense from the view point of evolution to have no barriers as much as possible?

How about more indirect proofs for evolution?
I think creating human-level AI would be an indirect proof for evolution.
Because it would prove human-like minds can be created artificially without any help from God.
Or how about humanity creating perfectly realistic virtual realities to live any way, again without any help from God?

How about proofs against evolution?
Could be that the incredible complexity and order in the universe and on earth, laws of physics, complexity of living creatures,
incredibly precise balance of everything etc counted as the proof of God?
How about all kinds fruits made by plants on earth?
Aren't they a huge energy expenditure for plants?
Aren't there much easier ways to use for those plants?
How about their highly varied complex designs?
Aren't they look like created especially for humans?

Why it is necessary to have proof anyway?
I think history of science is full of ideas which were strongly thought to be true for a long time but later turned out to be false.
I think Newton physics is a good example.
String theory could be another.
Their lesson is as long as there is no real proof for any idea/theory, it can still turn out to be wrong later.

Also I would like clarify that my goal here was to present impartial views and opinions for all sides.
Everybody is free to think whatever they want and free to believe whatever they want.
This even includes what new evidence(s) could come in the future.
People of this earth can interpret everything in different ways.
I do not think everybody would always agree on what is really a proof or evidence or a strong sign for what.
Even some people seem to clearly reject almost any kind of scientific proof or evidence.