13 comments

[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 41.0 ms ] thread
There's probably code in there, somewhere.
Here is a YouTube video of a breakdown of manually exploring the Ulam Spiral in the J programming language [1], and finally coding it up user tangentstorm. [2]

After all, J is an array-processing beast!

[1] jsoftware.com [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBC5vnwf6Zw

Three years ago I proposed using Ulam Spirals as the peering logic for Bitmessage (decentralized, trustless messenger service). Essentially with Bitmessage you trade messages with everyone on your network but you can be a member of multiple networks. My proposal was to be in one network but peer with with all the "touching" digit peers according to the Ulam Spiral. The benefit of this approach is that newer (higher value) networks are peering with older more established ones and there are multiple paths between non-touching networks to send messages.

Here is the forum post with the suggestion: https://bitmessage.org/forum/index.php?topic=2549.0

What has happened since then?
As someone who occasionally contemplates upon the Origin of Everything (something that I think every sapient being does at least once), looking at the Ulam Spiral felt like there was a faint inspiration just waiting outside the grasp of my understanding;

What if Reality came into existence simply out of mathematical truths and the patterns arising from them?

That would require no First Cause.

And of course, there would be multiple ways to "see" those patterns, with our universe being just one of those ways, just as the Ulam Spiral being a specific 2D ordering of primes. I said "came into existence" but it may be more accurate to say that all perceived existence is just one interpretation or another, of fundamental truths.

Wonderfully worded. I'd throw that to Bill Nye at big think on youtube at see what he has to say. He loves "far out there" explanations for everything like that
or he could ask an academically trained philosopher of mathematics and probably receive a much more insightful response
I like this insight, but it doesn't overcome the argument for a first cause because you'd still need to explain where those fundamental truths came from.