3 ms·

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio... The following statements are not equivalent: 1) The universe is computational or digital in structure. 2)

by teilo 14y ago

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio... The following statements are not equivalent: 1) The universe is computational or digital in structure. 2) The universe is a giant computer. 3) The universe is a simulation. #2 implies #1. #3 implies both #2 and #1. #1 does not imply #2 and #3. The universe can be digital in nature, without being either a simulation or a "giant computer". Also I think it ironic that the article uses quantum mechanics to show how the universe cannot map to computational processes because of the problem of determinism, at the very time when quantum mechanics is being used to create computational devices that leverage the property of non-determinism. Also "dangerously wrong"? Where's the danger, exactly? This whole article boils down to the question, "But what if they are wrong?" Ok, what if? What if Supersymmetry is wrong? What if String Theory is wrong? That's the way science works. You propose ideas. You test them. You throw out the bad/unprovable/wrong ones.

super_mario 14y ago
Exactly. A lot of what happens in the universe is a computation by formal definition of computation (which is rather broad and all encompassing). However, universe itself need not be a computer at all.
stephengillie 14y ago
I felt a sense of urgency when reading this article, as though it were trying to be the Catcher in the Rye, preventing us from trying to wake up Inception-style.
tcgv 14y ago
I guess it is "dangerous" because that is what we are teaching children at school nowadays, and young people at college, narrowing their views to this generally accepted concept.
nessus42 14y ago
I think you misunderstand the paper. And, in fact, I think the main point of the paper should be completely uncontroversial to anyone with even a lay understanding of GR. The point of the paper is that apparently the yout's of today are being taught that the universe started at the beginning of time with an initial state of S0, and then the state of the universe evolved (and continues to evolve) from that point point in time towards the future. There is one special point in time, which is now, and the past states of the universe no longer exist and the future state of the universe do not yet exist. In GR, however, this is not the way things work. Instead, all states of the universe always exist, the past states are still there and the future states are already there, and the present is not a special point in time; it just happens to be where we are. The fact that we don't currently experience the past or the future is no different from the fact that we are also not in Idaho. The universe, instead of evolving from the past to the future is the ever-exising solution to some equations. The distinction becomes more apparent when you think about the existence of closed timeline loops in GR and how those could exist without paradox. It's easy! Pardoxical situations are not a solution the equations. Is this view right? Who can say? What's dangerous about only presenting the "computational" view is that it limits the imagination of what is possible. Both models should be presented so that young minds evolve in a more flexible manner.
- teilo 14y ago
  Ah. This makes more sense to me. I believe the issue here is with the terminology, and (as usual) poor reporting. So what you are saying is that the author is objecting to that view which limits one's understanding of the universe to a fixed-state system.
  - nessus42 14y ago
    IIRC, the author didn't even really object to the computational model (aka "Newtonian Schema"). He just argued that it should not be the only one taught, as the "Lagrangian Schema" has some distinct advantages.

by teilo 14y ago

super_mario 14y ago

Exactly. A lot of what happens in the universe is a computation by formal definition of computation (which is rather broad and all encompassing). However, universe itself need not be a computer at all.

stephengillie 14y ago

I felt a sense of urgency when reading this article, as though it were trying to be the Catcher in the Rye, preventing us from trying to wake up Inception-style.

tcgv 14y ago

I guess it is "dangerous" because that is what we are teaching children at school nowadays, and young people at college, narrowing their views to this generally accepted concept.

nessus42 14y ago

I think you misunderstand the paper. And, in fact, I think the main point of the paper should be completely uncontroversial to anyone with even a lay understanding of GR. The point of the paper is that apparently the yout's of today are being taught that the universe started at the beginning of time with an initial state of S0, and then the state of the universe evolved (and continues to evolve) from that point point in time towards the future. There is one special point in time, which is now, and the past states of the universe no longer exist and the future state of the universe do not yet exist. In GR, however, this is not the way things work. Instead, all states of the universe always exist, the past states are still there and the future states are already there, and the present is not a special point in time; it just happens to be where we are. The fact that we don't currently experience the past or the future is no different from the fact that we are also not in Idaho. The universe, instead of evolving from the past to the future is the ever-exising solution to some equations. The distinction becomes more apparent when you think about the existence of closed timeline loops in GR and how those could exist without paradox. It's easy! Pardoxical situations are not a solution the equations. Is this view right? Who can say? What's dangerous about only presenting the "computational" view is that it limits the imagination of what is possible. Both models should be presented so that young minds evolve in a more flexible manner.

teilo 14y ago
Ah. This makes more sense to me. I believe the issue here is with the terminology, and (as usual) poor reporting. So what you are saying is that the author is objecting to that view which limits one's understanding of the universe to a fixed-state system.
- nessus42 14y ago
  IIRC, the author didn't even really object to the computational model (aka "Newtonian Schema"). He just argued that it should not be the only one taught, as the "Lagrangian Schema" has some distinct advantages.