Talk:Digital physics

message: As John Archibald Wheeler puts it in the "Complexity, Entropy and the Physics of Information (Paperback) by Wojciech H. Zurek (Editor), 1990":   "No continuum. No continuum in mathematics and therefore no continuum in physics. A half-century of development in the sphere of mathematical logic has made it clear that there is no evidence supporting the belief of the
existing character of the number continuum.".
I would like to add something to this:
introductions to quantum mechanics often cite that "things" need to have a finite density of degrees of freedom to keep heat capacity finite.
Otherwise thermodynamic equilibrium would never be reached, it would be very cold around us, life wouldn't exist and we wouldn't be here talking.
Antropic principle again?
Anyway isn't this a way to say that things are intrinsically discrete like in a computer image?
In the classical picture stuff is described by continuous functions and it's infinitely divisible.
The classical use of continuous functions could be the result of the tremendous success of calculus in the last 200 years more than an intrinsic need for them.
Sorry for the intrusion.
 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepicima (talk • contribs) 00:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should 'Physical symmetries are continuous' / 'Physical theory requires the continuum' be removed from the Criticism? 

message: I am thinking of merging Digital philosophy and Computational universe theory into this page.
Any reactions?   1Z 22:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Should NOT be merged. Digital physics is a branch of physics while Digital philosophy is a philosophy and a cultural phenomena discussing the 'matrix movie' and other crap. (Mitra 22:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Digital physics has no chairs, departments, predictive theories or experimental results. It is a philosophical attitude adopted by some physicists. 1Z 14:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is a physical theory. See references in the article or just google it.  --63.204.19.188 (talk) 06:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger 

message: The last section, "continuous alternatives", makes statements such as "it has been shown" without giving any sources for these contentions.James Haughton 03:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More than that, I have no clue how some silly pattern that happens to show up in, what amounts to a screen saver, has anything to do with the topic at hand.  That section needs some serious improvement. Gigs 11:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  continuous alternatives 

message: Just added: Physicist Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker proposed the theory of ur-alternatives in his book "Einheit der Natur" (1971) and further developed it in his book "Zeit und Wissen" (1992). The theory is an example of digital physics as it axiomatically constructs quantum physics from the distinction between empirically observable, binary alternatives. Weizsäcker used it to derive the 3-dimensionality of space and to estimate the entropy of a proton falling into a black hole. Discrepancy (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theory of Ur-Alternatives 

message: A relevant citation is Ulvi Yurtsever, "Quantum Mechanics and Algorithmic Randomness", early arxiv versions , final journal version .  It works pretty much as the paragraph describes: if quantum bits are pseudorandom (as predicted by Schmidhuber in particular, I can add), then locality can be violated---i.e. spacelike/superluminal communication can be designed.  Perhaps Schmidhuber's prediction can be saved by saying that beta-decay bits are compressible but only with relatively huge running times, but that rules out feasible testability of the prediction anyway.  I myself haven't yet followed thru on a promise (to David Chalmers himself mentioned in the article) to raise this with his colleague Marcus Hutter, an associate of Schmidhuber's---though this page makes me expect he would already know of Yurtsever's general argument anyway.  Anyway if you-all agree on its relevance you can add the citation.
KWRegan (talk) 03:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure the pseudorandom sequence is one per simulated universe, not per quantum bit. Mitra (talk) 08:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding "Some argue[citation needed] that the models of digital physics violate various postulates..." 

message: the "Criticism rebutted" section is crap. it needs to be rewritten from scratch in an encyclopedic way. --Aaronshavit (talk) 23:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  the "Criticism rebutted" section 

message: This dissertation by Gualtiero Piccinini is purported to be the first academic work where this neologism appeared (page 205). I think this fact merits inclusion in the article. --Omnipaedista (talk) 10:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pancomputationalism 

message: I have only a passing knowledge of this kind of physics (it goes in, lights up my brain, puts a smile on my face, then slowly leaks away after five minutes), but this line:
:Digital physics suggests that there exists, at least in principle, a program for a universal computer which computes the evolution of the universe in real time.
sounds odd to me. What is "real time" in this case? Surely it doesn't matter how fast or slow the computer is calculating our universe - we would experience it just the same. Or is it saying that such a computer could exist within our universe? Wouldn't that be impossible, since it would have to be emulating itself, emulating itself, emulating itself... David (talk) 19:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is full of this kind of odd thinking. 178.38.85.195 (talk) 01:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real time? 

message: Just a point which might seem trivial, Simulation is a term that can be used for a variety of Games as well as training tools. There are various Simulators used by Militaries to teach people how to use equipment and kill an opposing force.  In regards to gaming this generates the psychology that a "simulated" person is expendable, after all you can just "add more quarters" on death or not worry about realworld consequences.
I would suggest a preference towards the usage of the term "Emulation" and "Emulator" considering that Emulation is usually an independent working model run on a different platform.  If a person was emulated they would therefore be as real as you or I and not seen as expendable cannon fodder.
Stryder (talk) 13:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simulation Vs Emulation 

message: I think this xkcd comic sums up the theory pretty well:
http://xkcd.com/505/
but probably doesn't have a place in the main article. David (talk) 01:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevant xkcd 

message: Logically, from the perspective of digital physics, life and artificial life become indistinguishable.
I've not yet found any significant reference material highlighting this, but I feel it is a very significant consequence of the theory and perhaps worth a mention.  Thoughts?
I feel that until some citable liturature comes about, we should hold off on writing that section.  I do agree, however, that it should be included in this article. Astropiloto (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it worth mentioning resolution of the duality artificial life vs life? 

message: I am surprised that thisBeane, Silas R; Davoudi, Zohreh; Savage, Martin J., 2012, Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation doesn't appear in this article, even though it is given its own section on the Simulation Hypothesis page. It might warrant a reference in the Criticism->Physical symmetries are continuous section, in the paragraph "Proponents of digital physics..."; if not, maybe under Further reading. 132.170.57.103 (talk) 05:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional Proponents 

message: A number—in particular a real number, one with an infinite number of digits—was defined by Turing to be computable if a Turing machine will continue to spit out digits endlessly. In other words, there is no "last digit". But this sits uncomfortably with any proposal that the universe is the output of a virtual-reality exercise carried out in real time (or any plausible kind of time).
This kind of writing just seems to swim around in a kind of soft-focus version of actual scientific thought.
1. A real number = a number with an infinite number of digits.
2. A number is computable if the Turing machine just never stops.
3. Neither the number nor the Turing machine ever comes to a conclusion.
4. This could never be computed in real time.
5. So the universe can't compute numbers if they are real numbers and it is a computer.
6. But the universe sits comfortably.
7. So the universe is not really a computer.
178.38.85.195 (talk) 01:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Off key 

message: "the universe is, at heart, describable by information, and is therefore computable."
This is a definite candidate for WP:TNT if there are any volunteers to rewrite. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:TNT 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Digital physics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080807173904/http://puhep1.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/QM/lloyd_nature_406_1047_00.pdf to http://puhep1.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/QM/lloyd_nature_406_1047_00.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :It from bit. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 1#It from bit until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "It from bit" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Adumbrativus (talk) 09:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Digital physics →  – Is this page on ontology or physics? FatalSubjectivities (talk) 23:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

text: Are there reliable sources that use the term "digital ontology"? The article cites sources that use "digital physics" and "digital philosophy". Is there evidence about which term(s) are commonly used in the field?--Srleffler (talk) 04:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 3 October 2022