Mankind wants to know where the Multiverse came from, and how the
world originated. It is a hard problem. Many minds had tried to solve and
failed. Only nothingness can be assumed to be the starting point,
because assuming anything else would require the explanation of its
own existence. So,
Euler asked why is there something rather than
nothing?

Here's the idea of my logic:

1. Nothingness.
2. Equidistance of probability to evolve towards all directions (probability
sphere with Pi ratio of its radius to circumference).

No matter what-dimensional is the sphere, it may even change and
evolve, but this construction generates the concept of a sphere, thus,
generates Pi.

Why normality of Pi?

It's not yet proven!

A wise man once told me that he could write a program that, if run on
sufficiently powerful computer, could produce every conceivable view of
the world a person could ever experience. I asked, how. He responded
that by enumeration -- for instance, our eyes have finite number of
photoreceptor cells, and limited selectivity to discern different colours.
So, we could enumerate all possible images an eye could ever see.

An interesting guess is that Pi is a normal number. If that is true, it would
mean that somewhere far in the digits of Pi there you should be able to
find any number with finite number of digits --- so, potentially any
experience with finite sensory resolution receptors.

What is this Pi thing, anyway?
Take a line and rotate it around a point which is halfway
along the line, and measure how far it travels compared to
the length of the original line. Sounds arbitrary. And yet...this
ratio turns up everywhere.

If it is some transformation from one-dimension to two
dimensions, then why is the surface area of a sphere not
related to Pi squared?

Is there a nature numbering system where the base changes for each numerical position?
250701
2base 10, 5 base 6, 0 base 32, 7 base 17, 0 base 0, 1 base 2

The understanding of the origin of Universe(=Everything, Multiverse, and our Life experience included) was likely never fully successful. Fundamental obstacle for succeeding in it has been the logical inconsistency of the concepts "Origin" and "Universe", because an attempt to explain Everything by Something, makes the Something part of Everything, which leaves us with "Nothingness", as the only viable candidate for "Origin".

Universe to us subjectively appears as a complex and diverse experience. In fact, except for some regularity (which we call laws of physics), the patterns we see every day appear so complex, that only something like a universal computer with large memory could possibly generate it. We had recently even done so by creating 3D computer games and worlds running on Universal Turing Machines (UTMs) -- our computers.

From here, we can conclude:

(1) It follows that, if we could come up with a UTM from "Nothingness", we could explain pretty much everything that is computable.

Our experiences rely on finite numbers of receptors with limited granularity of selectivity, and limited lifespan, which seem to imply finite number of possible experiences (as their Cartesian product) by a being.

(2) It follows that, our life experience is likely computable.

To come up with a UTM from "Nothingness", let's:

1. assume "Nothingness"
2. conclude "Equidistance"
(because "Nothingness" means equal absense of information regarding any aspect whatsoever)
3. see the definition of a ball
4. see the computation of Pi number with varying precision, i.e.:

Remember balls from degenerate ones in low-dimensional spaces with special coordinate systems and weird distance metrics, to quite standard Euclidean ones, to hypersphere, to the most near-perfect conceivable ball regading any information aspect whatsoever.

Unfortunately, we don't know if Pi is really equivalent to UTM, because we had not yet solved the Normality of Pi conjecture, but assuming it is Normal, to understand how your unique experience of life could have arisen:

1. assume that your life experience is a finite number
2. conclude that it is in Pi.

Imaging something and explaining that same something
are
slightly different. As in, "These concepts are not
congruent
at any point" type of slightly different.

So, you started with Nothing, and then concluded that
Time
& Space don't exist. It is possible that this could be used
to
show a fundamental counterfactuality in your conclusion.

Let me see if I can reduce this idea: Pi has infinite digits, and is assumed to be a normal number.

We have a finite amount of possible visions from our collective perspectives, limited to the reception of our eyesight. In some strange way this is (falsely) imagined by [Mindey] to correlate with all that is knowable about life, the universe, and everything. These can be coded to digits in Pi in some simple coding process.

Not sure what the origin of the universe has to do with any of that, but...

// Not sure what the origin of the universe has to do with that, but...

Fundamental obstacle for succeeding in it has been the logical inconsistency of the concepts "Origin" and "Universe", because an attempt to explain Everything by Something, makes the Something part of Everything, which leaves us with "Nothingness", as the only viable candidate for "Origin".

The idea is how we could obtain Pi from assumption of nothing.

You would make an interesting character in HHGTTG. Do you keep getting killed off by the same guy, perchance?

Actually the "Baker's Guide to the Galaxy" could be an interesting read. But I'm not sure if it would be the actual guidebook, or the fictional story, or both...

[MaxwellBuchanan], <looks around>... Funny. I often look around, and get surprised that, against all the odds, I exist.

It's not a WTKE, because... well, I don't see any other solution to the puzzle of how to derive a potential UTM from nothing, so I see it as a candidate for solution. I'd love to find another candidate, too.

What I would like to do, though, if we have data generated by a UTM. Be it Pi or whatever,... try to do statistical analysis, and determine, if we find any, at least the very basic, laws of physics, say, in the Pi written in binary, or some even more fundamental representation of it.

I'm still not getting this. Your basic premise is that
the value of pi exists as an abstract concept,
independently of space and time; and therefore acts
as a starting point for the existence of the physical
universe?

// Your basic premise is that the value of pi exists as an abstract concept, independently of space and time; and therefore acts as a starting point for the existence of the physical universe?

Yes, and can be arrived at without thinking. (Well, we have to think to make sense, but, independently of that, a zero-sized point is a ball with radius zero.)

Pi doesn't exist independently of the universe. (Don't
believe me? Draw a circle on the surface of a sphere and
measure the ratio, then repeat it at a different diameter).
Given that we are uncertain of the
shape of our universe once you get beyond three
dimensions, (or even how many dimensions there are), the
general applicability of Pi is extremely questionable.

// I don't see how the idea of pi causes a universe to come into existence.

[MaxwellBuchanan], not the idea of Pi. I mean it's the absence of any idea is what causes universe come into existence. At least now, I see no problem how the concept of a ball doesn't have to exist in our heads to arise logically from nothing.

// The phrase "not even wrong" describes any argument that purports to be scientific but fails at some fundamental level, usually in that it contains a terminal logical fallacy or it cannot be falsified by experiment (i.e. tested with the possibility of being rejected), or cannot be used to make predictions about the natural world. //

[hippo], I would argue that with sufficiently powerful computers, we could try to discover the laws of physics in the data generated by computation of Pi. If so, it can be used to make predictions about the natural world. So, not "not even wrong". I think we have the same kind of problem with string theory at these times.

//we could try to discover the laws of physics in the data generated by computation of Pi// - but what does this mean? - how would you go about deriving the laws of physics from a computation of pi? Do you have any reason for thinking this is possible?

//I would argue that with sufficiently powerful
computers, we could try to discover the laws of
physics in the data generated by computation of
Pi.//

I agree with [hippo]. The idea has no support
whatsoever. Yes, all the laws of physics are there, in
ASCII, somewhere. Likewise, all the non-laws of
physics are in there. So are the recipes for chocolate
muffins and for chicken in a peach sauce.

(<footnote> [MaxB] Actually I'm not sure if that's true - that is, it does not logically follow that, just because a sequence of numbers is infinite and
non-repeating that it must contain every possible finite sequence of numbers. Practically, this means that the sequence of numbers which makes up pi is not guaranteed to contain my phone number.</footnote>)

[Hippo] That's why his [mindey]'s assumption that Pi is
normal is critical. In a normal number, all strings are
equally probable. But there is no basis for that assumption.

// how would you go about deriving the laws of physics from a computation of pi? Do you have any reason for thinking this is possible? //

How?

1. We already have some very persistent illusions about the world from physics. Take, say, conservation of energy, or 3D-imensionality of world appearance, or even .

2. Select the phenomena (e.g., physical experiments we used to validate these laws), look closely, and ask -- due to what kind of measurements we conclude that this law holds true? These measurements will define some functions, the approximations of which will be the known laws.

3. Use these functions to generate pictures (time axis included, so, videos, and they should be from the perspective of other basic objects, like electron-electron interaction from an electron perspective).

4. Look for patterns similar to these images in data generated by computation of Pi.

("similar" -- well, we have pattern recognition techniques already, including dimensionality reduction, Euclidean or other distance after feature extraction, classifiers, etc.)

// Do you have any reason for thinking this is possible?

Yes. Though normality of Pi is not proven, and it looks pretty complex to me. If it is equivalent to UTM, then it would mean that you could find any finite string of numbers there. That alone would mean the possibility to find any experience of finite being, but hey, we also a way to try to check it experimentally, by data analysis, as described above.

Steps 2 and 3 don't really make sense - it may be best to explain them with an example. And you haven't explained why you have any a priori belief that the laws of nature would be encoded in pi - that is to say, why is this a reasonable hypothesis to explore?

My point is that there is no advantage to doing this with any
particular number. A truly random string is equally as good
(and computationally easier). Said random string also has
the advantage of being provably normal.

Generally, in quantity, from Random.org, which means
from atmospheric radio noise. And yes, they are truly
random.

For small values, dice rolls work quite well.

That being said, in either case, what's the value of this?
It appears to be taking known information (the value of
your simulation), and searching for it in a given number
string. But all that does is show that it exists in that
number string. Given an infinite, normal number, of
course it does, and probably more than once. But what
good does knowing that, or even knowing where it is.

It's not useful for for running a simulation, because the
next digit won't have anything to do with your string.

It's not good for learning anything further about the
universe for the same reason.

[MaxwellBuchanan]... indeed, at this miserable computational power of modern computers, and lack of knowledge about properties of the number, it may only satisfy metaphysically.

Problem is, I want definite conclusions about the world. I don't believe in randomness. "God does not play dice."

But it's for other reason -- I'd rather know precise truth, than have free will.

[MechE] what it might reveal? I would be pretty amazed to discover some basic laws of physics in it, like the mentioned energy conservation law.

For example, the Rule 30 Wolfram's cellular automaton generates a pattern very similar to the "Conus textile" sea shell. It's a primitive example, I would look fundamental patterns like basic laws of physics in the data of Pi.

If we find a great deal of laws of physics in it with statistical confidence greater than it would be expected in random data, then that might just reveal something... ! (after finding some laws, one could actually think about the less obvious patterns of the data, and see if we can discover in nature what the model predicts)

If Pi is a normal number, you will find all basic laws
of physics in it, in whatever encoding you care to
search, and more than once. But it doesn't mean
anything. You will also find the complete works of
Shakespeare and a complete video of last year's
"Dancing with the Stars".

Nothing is revealed or discovered by this, it is
simply the nature of a normal number of
infinite length. As [MB] said, infinite monkeys on
infinite typewriters.

//Mankind wants to know where it came from, and how the world originated//

Actually, my experience of mankind in general is that they don't care one iota about that sort of thing.

//A wise man once told me that he could write a program that, if run on sufficiently powerful computer, could produce every conceivable view of the world//

This is Douglas Adams territory isn't it. Total Perspective Vortex. Fairy cake etc.

Who sorts out the real physical law discoveries from the
random gibberish that might be physics laws but off by a
digit or include cartoon wile e coyote physics?

// If Pi is a normal number, you will find all basic laws of physics in it, in whatever encoding you care to search, and more than once. //

[MechE], if it is normal, then yes. We don't yet know if it is normal or not. So, maybe that's what makes it interesting. Moreover, I'm not a fan of Pi. Let's search for other ways to derive something from nothing.

// But it doesn't mean anything. //

One of the things it could mean is that we don't need to assume a god to explain our existence.

[pertinax], well it makes sense to put it under "other: metaphysics". After all, it's very very hard to make a connection to predictions about the real world, especially if Pi happens to be normal. Then it's not informative about the universe at all...

And that though, still keeps me wondering, what if Pi is not normal.