> I dunno, I think it's pretty easy to judge the value of not easily testable wacky conjectures. Can you describe the process you use to easily judge the value

> I dunno, I think it's pretty easy to judge the value of not easily testable wacky conjectures. Can you describe the process you use to easily judge the value of such conjectures? I'm at a loss of how that would be done since, even though a conjecture might not be testable easily, it might still end up being true. Even if not completely true, it might in some sense be close enough to inspire new ways of thinking that ultimately lead to the correct solution. For this reason, I'm wary of premature dismissal of "wacky" ideas. > Putting that aside; computer guys seem to think "computability" is important in physics. I don't. Taking a step back, the very ability to realize computational systems in physical systems seems very peculiar and interesting in itself, in the same way that noticing how peculiar it is that mathematics is able to describe such a large portion (all?) of physics. It then seems natural to ask oneself whether any physical system could then be considered to model some computation, which would make the connection bidirectional. I do not consider this observation to be that ludicrous nor exclusive to the computer guys.