Programming of Everything
Why is it called Metacomputics?
In ancient Greek, Natural Philosophy was the study of the world we live in. It was then developed into two branches: Physics that studies observable natural phenomena; and Metaphysics that studies non-observable fundamental mechanism that underlying the observed phenomena.
Physics laid the foundation for Science which has branched out many disciplines but also limited itself to study only observable phenomena that is repeatable and verifiable independently.
The so called scientific methodology has been well established to carry out scientific study. This involves observing and collecting evidence, proposing hypothesis that makes prediction, testing the hypothesis by experiment.
Study of computation, despite being labelled ‘Computer Science’, is very different from science and scientific methodology. The term ’Computics’, although not widely used, should be a more appropriate term for this discipline.
The proposed Platonic computation system does not exist physically; it is a ‘thought model’ or ‘mental model’ exists in Platonic realm that is proposed to be the fundamental mechanism underlying perceived existence. Therefore’ Metacomputics’ is adopted.
Is Metacomputics a new idea?
Two and half centuries ago, Laozi (Lao-Tzu or Lao-Tze) described the Creation process in ‘Dao Te Ching’ as ‘Dao gives birth to One, One gives birth to Two, Two gives birth to Three, Three gives birth to everything’.
The 3-Tier hierarchy model is a modern interpretation of this process in which Source Mind conceives Unity Screen, Unity Screen derives Duality of binary polar opposites, and Duality derives Metacomputation System of Trinity of Data, Program and Processor.
What is new is that such a metacomputation system is presented as a foundation for Digital Physics and Digital Philosophy hypothesis proposed by Zuse and Fredkin in 1960s.
Fredkin suggested that it “…only requires one far-fetched assumption: there is this place, Other, that hosts the engine that “runs” the physics.” He also speculated Other to be ‘A continually existing place - not in this Universe, not subject to the laws of our physics - that can create and run discrete processes capable of modelling this Universe’.
The Metacomputation System is Fredkin’s 'Other'.
Can Metacomputics be proven?
It cannot be proven to be true. But it can be proven to be logically coherent and useful.
Human mind cannot know Creation as itself is a product of Creation. This can be likened to the fact that a machine cannot understand its designer. We can however speculate and propose models based on our observations that can be used to make sense of our experiences and make predictions.
Metacomputics is based on the premise that Source Mind can conceive something from nothing. This is modeled from observing our own mind. We all experience thoughts arising from a blank mind. The blank mind, though empty, is full of potential and capability to conceive and to perceive.
We experience a dual world: black/white, up/down, positive/negative, happy/sad, left/right, on/off, day/night, light/darkness,
Metacomputation System is modeled from our physical digital processing systems, virtual reality simulation in particular.
The model explains a range of important concepts and phenomena that have not been understood based on existing accepted theories. These include Consciousness, Time, Space, Number, Mind, Language, etc.
The model predicts the existence of powered voxels in a 3D grid space. This is in agreement with quantum field fluctuation in vacuum that are being observed at accelerator facilities around the world.
It must be admitted that metacomputics is still in its infancy. It requires further rigorous and precise reasoning and experimental testing.
Huge amount of work will be required to discover programs that compute full range of human experiences including perception, feeling, emotion and thought. Eventually we will be able to rewrite every word and sentence in human languages with codes.
The metacomputation System model is just a fairy tale, isn’t it?
Yes, it is. So are other existing theories and models. None of them are proven to be true and none of them can be proven to be true.
In comparison, some models are more logically coherent than others; some explains more observations and experiences than others; some are more useful than others; some models leads to clarity and others to confusion.
Consider which is more logical?
A chunk of matter /energy popping out of nothing; or an idea/mental object popping out of a blank mind? We observe the former only in magic shows; whereas we experience the latter personally, directly, and daily.
Consider which has more clarity and simplicity?
A particle animal zoo with hundreds of species; or binary 0 and 1.
Consider which is more useful?
A string in 10th dimension that makes no predictions and cannot be verified; or a computation system that predicts what space looks like in physical reality.
But at the end of the day it ought to be a personal choice weather to use a model and which one to use at a given situation and circumstance.