2023-09-18 08:28 UTC
@kendmiller@qoto.org
Concrete examples:
Stephen Wolfram has a model called the "Ruliad," which he considers to be a model of not just this world, but all possible world. But it's 100% computational. So: nope. It remains trapped in a small world and does not even begin to describe what is possible in the real (large) world.
https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2021/11/the-concept-of-the-ruliad
Similarly, Sara Walker and Lee Cronin have come up with an interesting computational model of chemical complexification during the history of the ...
Replies (1)
-
@yoginho@spore.social 2023-09-18 08:30
@kendmiller@qoto.org ... universe, which is called "assembly theory." But instead of seeing this as what it is (an interesting model) they claim it is a new theory of physical time. https://aeon.co/essays/time-is-not-an-illusion-its-an-object-with-physical-size In both cases, the models are really interesting, but it is a mistake to claim they *are* the world. This is my main point here. Computation is a powerful tool to model the world. But I have no idea what someone means when they say "physics *is* computation." Probably, it does not mean anything.