peter_m1

6 ms·

1.
by peter_m1 2mo ago
We can still test the theory that computation describes physical reality with experiment (presumably it makes predictions). The scientific method still holds.
2.
by peter_m1 2mo ago
Here is a brief history of computability I wrote as a blog a few months ago, https://deeplp.com/blogs/f/the-birth-of-computability-theory . Hope it's helpful to the conversation.
3.
by peter_m1 2mo ago
Your intuition could also be dead wrong.
4.
by peter_m1 2mo ago
The computational view of the universe and the nature of reality has provided us with some new insights.
5.
by peter_m1 2mo ago
Theoretical computer science is where it's at.
6.
by peter_m1 2mo ago
Attention is all we need.
7.
by peter_m1 2mo ago
The theory of general relativity answers this exact question. It has been tested experimentally and has been found to be correct in the classical regime. By correct I mean that the experimental data agrees with theoretical prediction.
8.
by peter_m1 2mo ago
Yes, these are all our attempts at explaining the nature of reality. A kind of reaching into the unknown. A desire to understand the universe and our place in it.
9.
by peter_m1 2mo ago
The universe as a computer/computation has been explored by many (e.g., see John Wheeler and Seth Lloyd). However, the laws of physics give us a lot more predictions, so their explanatory power tend to be greater. For example, the natu
10.
by peter_m1 2mo ago
In this case quantum thermo.
11.
by peter_m1 2mo ago
No, you can prove things hold in the abstract mathematically, don't need to resort to physical systems.
12.
by peter_m1 2mo ago
A related question might be, what's the difference between mathematical (Godel), computational (Turing,) and physical (Yang-Mills) undecideabilty/computability?
13.
by peter_m1 2mo ago
Quantum mechanics is intrinsically probabilistic.
14.
by peter_m1 2mo ago
In physics we don't talk about decidability, but solvability.
15.
by peter_m1 2mo ago
There is such thing as a quantum Turing machine you know (Deutsch 1985).
16.
by peter_m1 2mo ago
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, the mass gap problem involves quantum physics, not classical, so the underlying math/logic is different.
17.
by peter_m1 2mo ago
A quantum Turing machine would be needed to simulate a truly quantum process. Stochasticity exists in classical systems, but that's an entirely different type of randomness.
18.
by peter_m1 2mo ago
That would be a quantum Turing Machine as radioactivity is a quantum process.