Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Time Travel Forum
Time Travel Discussion
What is the very nature of Time?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Kairos" data-source="post: 188204" data-attributes="member: 10263"><p>No. This is a blindspot for a lot of folks in physics. They tend to assume they are the most fundamental science. Theoretical computer science is the most fundamental science, dealing with the logical structure of reality, etc.</p><p></p><p>Some physicists attempt to figure out how to connect these things. David Deutsche comes to mind. You might enjoy reading a book titled Fabric of Reality.</p><p></p><p>I made it about half way through my PhD before my disability from military service caught up with me. My main focus in graduate school was artificial intelligence, but secondarily it was theoretical computer science, specifically the Theory A side of the house that deals with computational complexity. This issue of a missing connection between theoretical computer science and physics was, for me anyway, quite glaring early on.</p><p></p><p>For instance, we take for granted that the universe is even intelligible. That you can understand it (i.e. compute it) is really a consequence of the Church-Turing thesis. That life as it exists on Earth, a product of evolution as we know it, is a consequence of the recursion theorem. That is, a Turing machine is able to compute it's own encoding. This makes replication of theoretical machines possible, but also the ability for a machine to modify its encoding. That is essentially how biological reproduction and evolution work.</p><p></p><p>All these things the other sciences take for granted for the most part. They do not even consider the fact that the universe possesses a logical structure that makes their assumptions possible. It would be like a biologist just assuming gravity works and is not worthy of consideration as a more fundamental science -- that it just is.</p><p></p><p>This may be more of a deeper social problem relating to this weird dark age we are falling into. Most research papers published today are garbage. Most cannot be replicated by peers. We have American theoretical physics not even doing actual science anymore.</p><p></p><p>That is just my 2c, anyway.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Kairos, post: 188204, member: 10263"] No. This is a blindspot for a lot of folks in physics. They tend to assume they are the most fundamental science. Theoretical computer science is the most fundamental science, dealing with the logical structure of reality, etc. Some physicists attempt to figure out how to connect these things. David Deutsche comes to mind. You might enjoy reading a book titled Fabric of Reality. I made it about half way through my PhD before my disability from military service caught up with me. My main focus in graduate school was artificial intelligence, but secondarily it was theoretical computer science, specifically the Theory A side of the house that deals with computational complexity. This issue of a missing connection between theoretical computer science and physics was, for me anyway, quite glaring early on. For instance, we take for granted that the universe is even intelligible. That you can understand it (i.e. compute it) is really a consequence of the Church-Turing thesis. That life as it exists on Earth, a product of evolution as we know it, is a consequence of the recursion theorem. That is, a Turing machine is able to compute it's own encoding. This makes replication of theoretical machines possible, but also the ability for a machine to modify its encoding. That is essentially how biological reproduction and evolution work. All these things the other sciences take for granted for the most part. They do not even consider the fact that the universe possesses a logical structure that makes their assumptions possible. It would be like a biologist just assuming gravity works and is not worthy of consideration as a more fundamental science -- that it just is. This may be more of a deeper social problem relating to this weird dark age we are falling into. Most research papers published today are garbage. Most cannot be replicated by peers. We have American theoretical physics not even doing actual science anymore. That is just my 2c, anyway. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Time Travel Forum
Time Travel Discussion
What is the very nature of Time?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top