pesco at June 24th, 2014 14:25 — #1
nixiebunny at June 24th, 2014 15:45 — #2
The world is a 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 bit computer.
nixiebunny at June 24th, 2014 15:47 — #3
More seriously, the world is much more like an FPGA than a computer. An FPGA contains many logic circuits, all acting in parallel and not generally following a list of instructions as a computer does.
mrscience at June 24th, 2014 18:35 — #4
I came here to post about Wolfram's "A New Kind Of Science," but in searching for a good BB link (I know you've covered him in the past)... I found a cached page of this very BB article, not two hours old, that did include reference to Mr. Wolfram's huge tome. Apparently it was removed... Usually you have links to previous articles.
turnips at June 24th, 2014 23:44 — #5
If this world computer has a finite number of bits wouldn't irrational numbers become rational at a certain resolution?
willondon at June 24th, 2014 23:56 — #6
I don't recall Planck mentioning anything about a resolution.
catgrin at June 25th, 2014 04:29 — #7
I blame Douglas Adams for this research.
moronicjoker at June 25th, 2014 04:36 — #8
check it out
sklivvz at June 25th, 2014 07:09 — #9
No seriously, the universe is not a computer:
- The hypothesis does not really make useful predictions
- Every time we tried to see any form of "discrete" or "digital" physics, we found, that, in fact, the universe is analog and continuous.
So, no, we do not live in a computer, unless we postulate the computer is undetectable, which makes the theory completely unuseful.
I don't understand why this keeps on popping up, even on relatively skeptical sites like this one...
catgrin at June 25th, 2014 07:10 — #10
caze at June 25th, 2014 07:50 — #11
Every time we tried to see any form of "discrete" or "digital" physics, we found, that, in fact, the universe is analog and continuous.
can you back that up?
string theory is not infinitely scaleable for example (distance measurements invert once they reach the planck length), it could be that a discrete version could solve some of it's problems. quantum theory obviously operates on discrete units of energy as well, why not discrete units of space and time?
real-number based physics has hit a brick wall, general relativity can't explain quantum effects, and quantum theory is a mix of continuoius and discrete methods, and is obviously incmoplete. that's no guarantee that the real answer lies in a fully discrete theory, but the discovery of the planck constant certainly suggests it's something worth investigating. I've not heard much about Wolfram's approach though, sounds interesting.
antdude at June 25th, 2014 08:10 — #12
So, God is the root/superuser/admin(istrator). He needs to re(boot/set) it now.
caze at June 25th, 2014 08:49 — #13
...doing a bit more reading on the subject and it seems to that most discrete models break lorentz symetry, something which is forbidden due to experimental results. it seems certain discrete model proponents claim they have ways around this, but I'm not qualified to judge.
davide405 at June 25th, 2014 10:02 — #14
I say, Fock Lorentz symmetry!
gatto at June 25th, 2014 11:20 — #15
no, no. you see we're programmed to think the world is continuous. i have it on good auhority the actual resolution is around a meter.
pesco at June 29th, 2014 14:25 — #16
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.