[ExI] Stephen Wolfram proposes new framework for fundamental physics

[Giulio Prisco]

I tried to post this a couple of days ago, but there was an error. Retrying.

>From the FAQ:

Q: What does your model say about the simulation argument?

A: The model implies that there is a definite computational rule that
determines every aspect of what happens in our universe. If the
universe is to be considered a “simulation” this would suggest that
the rule is being determined by something outside the system, and
presumably in an “intentional” way. It is difficult enough to extend
the notion of intentionality far beyond the specifics of what humans
do, making it unrealistic to attribute it to something beyond even the
universe. In addition, the concept of rule-space relativity implies
that in a sense all possible rules are equivalent, at least to an
appropriate observer, and therefore there would be nothing for an
entity setting up the simulation to “intentionally decide”—since any
rule they could choose would appear to be the same universe to
observers embedded within it.

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 9:20 PM spike jones via extropy-chat
<extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> From: extropy-chat <extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org> On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Stephen Wolfram proposes new framework for fundamental physics
>
>
>
>
>
>
> https://turingchurch.net/stephen-wolfram-proposes-new-framework-for-fundamental-physics-629833845470
>
>
>
> >…He would seem to have rediscovered the concept of Planck scale.
>
>
>
>
>
> The thing to worry about is if he discovers this is all a digital simulation.  If you really ponder Church-Turing, it doesn’t seem too far-fetched.  But hey, perhaps it is a good thing.
>
>
>
> spike
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat