4 ms·
No, I don't think that's it. He is saying that physical reality is literally a network of interconnected nodes at its fundamental level. I think you're still as
by JabavuAdams 11y ago
No, I don't think that's it. He is saying that physical reality is literally a network of interconnected nodes at its fundamental level. I think you're still assuming that these graphs have to be embedded in some space to be real.
If we get fundamental enough, we can go below geometry, into algebra.
For a less abstract example, what's the radius of an electron in modern physics?
- vorg 11y agoThese graphs have to be embedded into a computation device to be real and changing in time. To build such a computation device, maybe you need time and space. It could even be that our Universe is of the minimum complexity required to build a computation device capable of computing the graphs that describe our Universe.
- JabavuAdams 11y ago> These graphs have to be embedded into a computation device to be real and changing in time. No, no, no! These graphs are meant to be more fundamental than spacetime. They can change in the sense that there are algebraic rules for stepping them from one state to another, but this step isn't in our time. Our space and time should be generated by operating on these graphs (let's say "stepping" them, as long as we remember that it's not a time-step in our spacetime, but just an algebraic operation). EDIT> I should say that this whole idea is a model. The question of whether a model is real or not independent of the system being modeled is a philosophical one that we can't really do justice to in an HN comment thread.