Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digital probabilistic physics


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Digital probabilistic physics

 * – ( View AfD View log )

3/5 sources are primary from Tom Stonier; fails WP:GNG and WP:NEO. Don't know if the concept is called something else in RS. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 18:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 ( d  c̄ ) 18:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. –Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d  c̄ ) 18:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Incoherent presentation of an idea that has no detectable presence in mainstream physics. The provided sources are either primary or don't mention Stonier. No reliable sources appear to use the term digital probabilistic physics itself. Reliable secondary sources on the concept don't appear to exist, and if they did, it would be hard to argue that this topic deserves a stand-alone article rather than a mention in some other page about vague, fringey "let's talk about the universe like it's a computer" speculations. (I shudder at the thought of trying to build a decent article on that. Many of the ideas thrown together into the "digital ontology" bucket contradict one another. For example, Wheeler's "it from bit" was explicitly nondeterministic in a strong way, a vision of a universe built up by its participants like players in a Twenty Questions game where there is no actual answer beforehand, only the goal of eventual agreement. That's pretty much the diametric opposite of the "everything is a deterministic cellular automaton" world view. The same goes for von Weizsäcker's notion of ur-alternatives; von Weizsäcker was a Copenhagener in the Niels Bohr tradition, but because he said "binary" somewhere, people trying to fluff their own "digital physics" claim him as a predecessor.) XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Zero relevance in the wider literature. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: non-Stonier sources don't show significance of the topic. XOR'easter gives good reasoning. — Bilorv ( talk ) 17:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.