Counter Argument...

Physics arXiv

Part of science is the point/counter-point of differing views. It is part of the process of the Scientific Method. Famous recollection: the argument between Einstein and Bohr on Heisenberg and Quantum Mechanics. Now an accepted part of physics, Einstein ultimately lost.

To the Google-it-downloading public, this can be confusing and frustrating. However, this is science: examination leads to different theories; theories are vigorously debated, verified or refuted. Then, everyone in the science community decides to go in the direction of the new paradigm. Probably why a lot of scientist (at least in the US) don't go into politics.

One of the driving forces in modern science is the idea that the Universe “computes” the future, taking some initial state as an input and generating future states as an output. This is a powerful approach that has produced much insight. Some scientists go as far as to say that the Universe is a giant computer.

Is this a reasonable assumption? Today, Ken Wharton at San Jose State University in California, makes an important argument that it is not. His fear is that the idea of the universe as a computer is worryingly anthropocentric. “It’s basically the assumption that the way we humans solve physics problems must be the way the universe actually operates,” he says.

What’s more, the idea has spread through science without any proper consideration of its validity or any examination of the alternatives. “This assumption…is so strong that many physicists can’t even articulate what other type of universe might be conceptually possible,” says Wharton.

Physics arXiv: Why The Universe Is Not a Computer