4 ms·
> especially since there are parts of the universe being doomed to never interact with any other part as the universe expands and their local neighborhood is pu
by uoaei 5y ago
> especially since there are parts of the universe being doomed to never interact with any other part as the universe expands and their local neighborhood is pushed beyond reach of particles travelling at c
It's not clear that this disqualifies the claim. Would you mind expanding?
I am heavily biased toward what I call a "computationalist" point of view on metaphysics. This has resulted from the study of machine learning theory, being primarily Bayesian probability theory, statistical mechanics, computing theory, etc. and recognizing the deep isometries between them. This position seemingly inevitably leads one to a panbiotist stance, i.e., that there is no line but an arbitrary one between what can be considered "individual" vs "collective", nor between "living" and "non-living". In short, It is the Spinozan "God" for the Information Age. So I am in vigorous agreement with the conclusions of these cosmologists.
- techbio 5y agoAlso in vigorous agreement. Though not necessary to your points, I think GP's post is saying that omnipresent omniscience is not computable everywhere equally in the current best understanding of physics.
- simorley 5y agoHow can you believe in a "computationalist view of metaphysics" when computable numbers make up a tiny insignificant portion of real numbers? Most real numbers are not computable.
- bitwize 5y agoThe universe can't be a self-teaching machine if by virtue of its constant expansion it's breaking up into smaller and smaller pieces that are totally informationally isolated from one another. If anything, that means it's getting stupider.