Scott Aaronson, 'Remarks on the Physical Church-Turing Thesis' FQXi conference 2014 in Vieques

The past century in physics seems to lead in a surprising direction: away from physics as a description of objects and their interactions, and towards physics as a description of the evolution of information. Is this the correct way to think about physics and the physical world? What is information? What does the term "information" even mean? What role does information play in quantum gravity, cosmology, thermodynamics, life and consciousness, and what links does it provide between these areas?

FQXi's international, interdisciplinary conference on the Physics of Information brought together leading researchers to discuss the significance, meaning, and uses of information in physics.

[davidwilkie]

The universe of possibilities that includes a Turing Machine is a Turing Machine at that locality, referenced to the empirical conditions evolved and phase-locked probabilities. It can only operate in compound pulses of apparent coherence because although the local driver seems to be causal, in totality the Universe is collectively unique, cause-effect in a self-defining Superspin Unitarity and emulations that arise dynamically, empirically, via the Uncertainty = Exclusion Principle of relative timing in QM-TIME. (= Multiverse concept, approximately)

The "Improbability Drive" in the "Heart of Gold", or Boltzman's Brain, have degrees of possibilities if they can be imagined->imaged, in the image that is the integrated Multiverse.., but the picture-perception is not the function in actuality, comprehensively. It's related to the pulse probability duration and significance of the relative definition of possible concepts in compound condensation, just as is observable. (?)

[matanshtepel]

Just dumped my computer -- writing this from a tub of soapy water connected to an ethernet cable 😎

[kerrytrax]

no disrespect to scott but what's with the hand movements?

[NightmareCourtPictures]

Aaronson's thesis is literally a copy of Wolfram's Computational Equivalence.

Aaronson's Thesis:
"No matter what physical laws we try to make up, if they are not absurdly constricted, then they'll either be Turing Universal, or else Turing-Universal with implausible additions..."

vs Wolfram's Principle of Computational Equivalence:
"Almost all processes that are not obviously simple can be viewed as computations of equivalent sophistication (Turing Universal)"

Starting to not really like Aaronson. Us-to really respect him...but now not so sure. I honestly don't care about who these people are or how they behave with each other...but Aaronson and Wolfram should be working TOGETHER...because its obvious Wolfram is on the right path towards a true theory of everything...but instead Aaronson would rather shoot it down...with lackluster arguments.

Here's another issue I have... Quantum Mechanics is not complete, and it is not well understood. STOP treating it like it is fundamental when we KNOW that it is not the fundamental theory of physics. Ask yourself what precedent is there to believe, that Quantum Mechanics should be any more special than any other classical system. If one were to assert that it is, it would imply that there is no unified theory of everything...since GR and QM (small scale and large scale) have to be fundamentally unified into the same structure, meaning one has to UNIFY (meaning make equivalent) classical and quantum systems. Wolfram's models of physics DO THIS...so ya that's my issue with Aaronson and it irks me because it feels like physics is wasting time.