One reason is that we basically know how to create arbitrary sets of finite observations by computation, but have not figured out how to implement even the weakest kind of hypercomputers (which is true as long as quantum computers don't have supremacy).
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @puellavulnerata @Meaningness and
What if the universe has no space but only a densely connected graph, and space is a subset of the graph that forms a flat lattice so you can send discernible information as stable gliders? Then volumes of space won't be bounded, there will usually be some noise from elsewhere.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @puellavulnerata @Meaningness and
I suspect that the edge lengths don't matter because when you zoom in at particle dynamics, you are looking at the local topology only, and when you zoom out to GR, you look at statistical aggregates of the local topologies 30 magnitudes above the Planck length.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @puellavulnerata @Meaningness and
Yes, Rovelli's perspective on LQG is close. But I think that the loonies: Zuse, Fredkin, Wolfram, t'Hooft are more likely correct, and the Church Turing Thesis is going to turn out to be a physical law. :)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
That does not really matter, because we are not discussing whether the Great Stephen is properly anointed to the cult. Take t'Hooft or Bolognesi. I guess that digital physics may be acceptable to about 5% of the foundational physicists already :)
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.