I don't think that particles hold us back any more than planets, and we need these descriptions in some contexts for the same reason. We just need to let go of both for foundational physics, and I agree that this is not controversial.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I suspect that superpositional states are uncomputed functions. It may be very hard to do without that without letting go of the notion of particles altogether.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I am not really interested in physics, but in ontology. For me, the most interesting question right now is whether we live in a hyper-computational (or even meta-computational) universe, or in a computable one. Few physicists seem to think that this question is deeply relevant.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I am not criticizing.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It all comes down to what questions one is interested in, which then informs the methodology. Scientific fields are started by questions, but defined by methods. The question of how to make a universe is of interest to very few people only.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I still suspect that if our universe is natural (not deliberately created from within another, perhaps natural universe), its foundational principles must be very simple. But we live in emergent dynamics, digging down from observables will get us stuck between layers of emergence
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It is one of these riddles that we stare at and wonder about the single underlying rule, no?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
GR is quite obviously a theory of emergent dynamics (like thermodynamics), and QM a bit less obviously so. The SM has half a page of complicated code! Don't you think that the fractal of this universe must have a much more concise generator?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I now think there is a class of universal function approximators, which can solve any problem that can be solved by a computational machine, and this class contains itself, and it also contains us. Given enough resources we can solve any solvable problem.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
There is not a single GUT, not even a hypercomputational one. You guys are an embarrassment. I fully expect that Deepmind will do it as a minor side project long before physicists have a clue.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.