What it’s all about.

The rules of this Blog involves some key assumptions: At some microscopic level, we assume that physical space, time and state are all, ultimately, discrete and deterministic. Further, we also assume that there are no physical infinities, infinitesimals, continuity, differentiability, nor any local sources of true non-deterministic behavior. Such concepts play no role in models we shall discuss. Thus, we assume that all information must have finite and discrete means of its representation and we assume that the evolution of state is governed by local, deterministic rules.

Given all of the constraints, we nevertheless wish to solicit posts to this blog. While we will not indulge in arguments about the ground rules, we believe that there are reasonable explanations as to how sub-microscopic systems, with all the constraints we are imposing, could nevertheless result in higher level processes that behave in ways consistent with the known laws of physics.

This entry was posted in Discrete Models of Physics. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to What it’s all about.

  1. G.H. says:

    Dear Ed,

    I’m watching on YouTube the panel discussion from the 2011 World Science Festival on digital physics. “Is the Universe The Ultimate Computer?” With other words, is there a logica (a pattern) behind Nature. How interesting! It keep my mind busy for ten years. I’m very close, since yesterday.. and it is too simple. I discover now, hearing this discussion, that the answers were allready given by Konrad Zuse 1910-1995, but can we see it? It is hard to grab.
    There is no kwantum computer needed. A simple computer and the right program, which is all ready for a long time for everyone on the market.

    I can imagine that you are not waiting for a million theories/models, to give an answer on this discussion. You have to see and experience it by yourself.

    It’s not coincidence that you just opened this blog…
    Maybe after 50 years research it is time to give at least some small clearity…

    You are such a nice guy with a lot of life experiences and knowledge.

  2. I’ve been working on a computational philosophy called Codifism:

    The Codifist Manifesto

    There could be some compatibility between Codifism and Digital Philosophy that might be of interest.

    • dbm says:

      Interesting stuff. Have you thought about how your philosophy applies to the physics of the world we appear to be embedded in?

  3. Yes. In terms of a computational version of Feynman sum of paths model of quantum mechanics.

  4. Akinbo says:

    In the intro to this blog is stated the assumption that ‘space has a discrete means of its representation’. This I agree with. But never again must physics/philosophers be carried away in discussions without first examining the ground rules, assumptions or definitions. For example, Euclid, the revered author of ‘The Elements’ gives us ambiguous definitions and got away with them, e.g. ‘a line has length but no breadth’ and yet it physically exists.

    In the instant case, what is the unambiguous meaning of “discrete” for this discussion?

    It is easy to define this for planets, air, water, atoms, etc. Space does the separation so we can call them “discrete”.
    But when the great SEPARATOR itself takes a discrete form, who will do the separation for us? Certainly, the separator cannot separate itself or can it?

    So while soliciting posts to this blog, those who can defend a continuous nature should be allowed to do so.

    In any case I am a believer that space has a dual means of its representation, i.e. it is simultaneously continuous and discrete and this I can and have defended.

    Who disagrees? Or who claims that space can separate its discrete representations?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>