4 ms·
It's basically saying that the universe is a special kind of computer that computes state transitions according to the rules of physics, presumably at the planc
by the8472 10y ago
It's basically saying that the universe is a special kind of computer that computes state transitions according to the rules of physics, presumably at the planck scale, which is far beyond what our simplified models of said rules can manage.
This view of he universe seems to be fairly important and taken seriously since black hole thermodynamics, gravity as entropic force and similar concepts are derived from it.
- philipkglass 10y agoThe digital physics everything-is-computation view of the universe is also not obviously wrong; it is taken seriously, as you say. But even if the universe is computational there's presently no example of running a human-defined instruction sequence at that fundamental level. The quote I was reacting to emphasizes feasibility: "To appreciate the feasibility of computing with no energy and no heat, consider the computation that takes place in an ordinary rock." There's precious little to suggest feasible computing with a rock. (Or to suggest other feasible ways to run computations of interest to humans with no input energy and no waste.) It's like reading "to appreciate the feasibility of supplying civilization's electricity sustainably, consider the energy released when two neutron stars collide." Both are strong contenders for "among the least feasible engineering programs not yet proven outright impossible."
- rorosaurus 10y agoThis thread might not be particularly relevant for you. The parent link is discussing theoretical computational capacity at a cosmic level - which "presently has no example of running a human-defined instruction sequence at that level".
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]