Talk:Digital physics

Should 'Physical symmetries are continuous' / 'Physical theory requires the continuum' be removed from the Criticism?
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)

Merger
I am thinking of merging Digital philosophy and Computational universe theory into this page. Any reactions? 1Z 22:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC) They should definitely be merged, as they cover the same idea.--Gupst1 02:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 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))


 * 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)


 * 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)

Digital physics is "physics" in the sense of ontics as per the immanence of Stoic physics, I guess? It's "physics", just like how Aristotle wrote a book "physics" even though it wasn't following scientific method

Digital physics could be considered philosophy, just like Stoic and aristotelian "physics" FatalSubjectivities (talk) 16:51, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

continuous alternatives
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)
 * 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)

Theory of Ur-Alternatives
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).

C.F. von Weizsǎcker's Ur theory starts from three assumptions: (i) There is no physical theory beyond ordinary quantum mechanics (in Hilbert space), (ii) the simpliest quantum mechanics are the basic elementary particles, and (iii) physics is constructed over them by means of quantum mechanics (i.e. tensor algebra). The most elementary particles are ur and antiur, with eigenvalues plus and minus one (the simple alternative). Mathematically they are described by a complex 2-dimensional Hilbert space, on which the hermitian matrices (the «observables") form a 4-dimensional real vector space. This real vector space carries a Minkowski form, i.e. a symmetric non-degenerate bilinear form of signature +--- in a natural way (this means as a "Killing" form of the Jordan algebra of these observables). So space-time comes in in a natural way, at least that one of special relativity. Space and time then are expressed by observables. But something we didn't understand: The "Killing" form, i.e. the invariant symmetric bilinear form of this Jordan algebra is constructed out of two elements of this Jordan algebra (not only one as for Lie algebras), i.e. there are two Hamiltonians. Hans Tilgner —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.94.224.254 (talk) 12:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't Einheit der Natur the first mention, published in '71 before the translation into English? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.221.168 (talk) 19:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding "Some argue[citation needed] that the models of digital physics violate various postulates..."
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)


 * Sure the pseudorandom sequence is one per simulated universe, not per quantum bit. Mitra (talk) 08:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

the "Criticism rebutted" section
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)

Pancomputationalism
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)

Real time?
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)


 * The article is full of this kind of odd thinking. 178.38.85.195 (talk) 01:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Simulation Vs Emulation
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)

Relevant xkcd
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)

anecdote
An IP placed this anecdote on the mainpage. I removed it and am reproducing it here for review if people are interested or think something should be salvaged:

Dr. Wheeler in 1985 was a visiting lecturer at Columbia University and Dr. Frederick W. Kantor was in attendance as a guest. During the class Dr. Kantor posed a couple of questions related to his published book on "Information Mechanics" and Dr. Wheeler was reticent to discuss the matter during the lecture. After the lecture's end Dr. Kantor approached Dr. Wheeler again but was rebuffed when Dr. Wheeler stated that he was not "smart enough" to understand about what Dr. Kantor was talking. Apparently, however, later on he adopted Dr. Kantor's ideas.

SamuelRiv (talk) 18:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Good you removed it. I'm also skeptical about this paragraph


 * The first formal presentation of the idea that information might be the fundamental quantity at the core of physics seems to be due to Frederick W. Kantor (a physicist from Columbia University). Kantor's book Information Mechanics (Wiley-Interscience, 1977) developed this idea in detail, but without mathematical rigor.


 * pretty early on in the life of the page, and, as you can see it lack any citation. Seems like self-promotion. 199.104.151.215 (talk) 05:29, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by lack of citation? The book exists: google it. 86.183.238.214 (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning resolution of the duality artificial life vs life?
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)

Additional Proponents
I am surprised that this 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)

Off key
''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)

WP:TNT
"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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link 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)

new results?

 * https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/physicists-find-we-re-not-living-in-a-computer-simulation
 * http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/9/e1701758

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

Prospective Theories section
If one wants to discuss the need to change the Prospective theories section feel free to do it here. A point of debate is whether we should use or replace two of the arXiv citations or not. I would argue since these are the original source of these theories we should include them. If we decide strictly against the use of arXiv we can use the articles from peer-reviewed journals or review articles referencing the same material such as https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/9789814374309_0029 — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreatContributor1 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 5 June 2022 (UTC)


 * No, that's exactly why we shouldn't include any of that material. Wikipedia articles are based on secondary sources, not primary ones. That includes Seth Lloyd's speculations. We need evidence that other people, not the speculators themselves, care. This entire topic is one of &mdash; to put it charitably &mdash; marginal interest, so that is an uphill argument to make. Regarding this edit summary, the fact that sources were used on another page doesn't mean that they are acceptable here; in fact, they should have been removed from there. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok so would you agree rewriting the prospective theories section based on sources like:
 * https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10670-016-9866-y
 * https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hans-Joachim-Rudolph/project/Currently-working-on-a-special-kind-of-digital-particles-ie-operators-on-digital-particles-in-complex-space-time/attachment/573b4faf08aea7adff2f3ee1/AS:362779644055552@1463504815215/download/SS09+SE+CompHist.pdf?context=ProjectUpdatesLog
 * https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11047-009-9115-2
 * For mentions of Lloyd's, Zizzi's and digital physics theories in general instead of the arXiv articles ? GreatContributor1 (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, a random PDF on ResearchGate which is so sloppy that it cites Wikipedia as a source definitely shouldn't be a source for a Wikipedia article. If anything, the fact that the 2016 paper in Erkenntnis did a literature review and found no systematic analysis of all digital physics calls into question why we have an article about the subject at all. We really shouldn't be writing such an analysis if one does not exist elsewhere first; that's basic policy. (The authors of that paper only claim to fill the gap partially.) I grow increasingly doubtful that there is a well-defined subject here, rather than a collection of ideas that sound vaguely related and are mentioned together in the marginal venues where they get discussed at all. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 01:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 3 October 2022

 * 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)

Digital physics → Digital ontology – Is this page on ontology or physics? FatalSubjectivities (talk) 23:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)

Local variables
Regarding my revision 1132443124 that was reverted, I still don't think that the text as currently phrased is correct. My intent was to make clear that digital physics does not require local hidden variables, which is the clear implication of the current text. Naasking (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I was the one who reverted you. Your edit comment was "Bell theorem rules out only local hidden variables so the claim is incorrect as simulations using non-local hidden variables are fine and used in quantum chemistry". The paragraph you objected to said "...extant models of digital physics violate ... quantum physics, belonging to the class of theories with local hidden variables", and was supported by a reference. Your edit, as justified by the edit comment, was therefore presumably contradicted by the cited source.


 * Your edit today cites a source, which is good, but it creates a conflict in the article. The article cannot both say that [all] extant models involve local variables and that some do not. We must resolve the conflict in the article. I'll take a look at it later; I don't have time right now. Resolving it may require someone with access to both sources and/or some expertise in the field.


 * It comes down to these questions: Do the sources disagree with one another? Is one just out of date? Are they talking about different things? Are the models that don't involve local variables not "extant"?--Srleffler (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes there's confusion around this, but it's a fringe topic so no rush. The way I've presented it is maybe confusing, so I'll summarize my main points: 1. digital physics definitely requires hidden variables, but may or may not require *local* hidden variables, 2. even if digital physics requires local hidden variables this is not necessarily inconsistent with existing no-go theorems, and 3. digital physics can also preserve the symmetries we observe.
 * I agree that "extant" models I'm aware of are not explicitly non-local so I'll leave #1 as-is. The citation I provided is evidence of #3 and provides further references of earlier publications, so I'll just jot down the facts I'm aware of for #2 and you can do with that what you will.
 * First, I don't see why digital physics would entail local hidden variables being observable. For instance, Bohmian mechanics has long been used in quantum chemistry (see review arXiv:1801.04781). Since these simulations take place on digital computers, is that not a direct refutation of the claims of incompatibility?
 * The citation [8] proves only that digital physics may require a preferred frame of reference. Covariant Bohmian mechanics also requires this, but this preferred frame is not observable, so again, not really a problem as it doesn't violate relativity even if it's "ugly".
 * I found a copy of "Clockwork Rebooted", and here's a quote from its conclusion, "Although there is little question that, under appropriate conditions, [...] it is logically possible that [portions of the universe] could be simulated given *unlimited* computational resources, the universe itself as a whole is better not identified as a computer". In other words, "the universe as a digital computer" is maybe not so useful a model, but a universal Turing machine, being an unlimited digital computer, can nonetheless simulate the universe.
 * I'll quote Peter Shor, "Because of quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle, the value of a physical constant can't be defined to more than 60 or 70 digits. And any finite-precision number by definition is computable." If physical constants are by necessity precision-limited, then it follows that any computations that involve them are also precision-limited, and so can be computed on a digital computer.
 * Finally, there's always the superdeterminism loophole. As mentioned, even if the underlying substrate features local hidden variables, as long as the evolution law preserves certain invariants, this can show up as violations of Bell's inequalities. This is sort of what you see in Tim Palmer's Invariant set postulate, for instance.
 * I don't think all of the above should be in the article on this fringe topic, I just want to make the case that the current wording about its incompatibility with observations is a bit misleading, because it leaves the impression that experiments have ruled it out. Naasking (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC)