Advertisement

Clockwork Rebooted: Is the Universe a Computer?

  • Gregg Jaeger
Chapter
Part of the STEAM-H: Science, Technology, Engineering, Agriculture, Mathematics & Health book series (STEAM)

Abstract

The idea of grounding physics in principles of computation and an information ontology by considering the universe as fundamentally a digital computing entity has been of increasing interest over the past several decades. It has been claimed in some versions of this approach that this entity is a cellular automaton. The most literal version of the idea that the universe is a “giant quantum computer” has been advocated recently by Seth Lloyd—who traces it back to previous work, including that of Zuse, Fredkin, and, less plausibly, Feynman—on the grounds that it provides a novel explanation for the complexity currently seen in the universe. In particular, it is claimed that the simulation of the known physical universe by an abstract automaton is sufficient for the ontological identification of the former with the latter. Here, a critical analysis of the arguments for this picture of the physical world is given in which both the similarity of it to the past picture of the world as a mechanical clockwork and the difference of it from existing physical theory are discussed. It is shown that the claim that the universe is an enormous computer, like the thesis that it is an enormous clockwork, is unwarranted, whatever value it might have for moving beyond previous mathematical approaches to physics through a move to discrete descriptions of physical processes.

Notes

Acknowledgements

I gratefully acknowledge Tom Toffoli for helpful discussions regarding pertinent elements of the theories of automata and complexity.

References

  1. 1.
    Abrams, D., Lloyd, S.: Nonlinear quantum mechanics implies polynomial-time solution for NP-complete and #P problems. Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 3992 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beckman, F.S.: Mathematical Foundations of Programming. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1981)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bezos, J.: 10,000 Year Clock. website. http://www.10000yearclock.net/
  4. 4.
    D’Ariano, G.M.: The quantum field as a quantum computer. Phys. Lett. A 376, 697 (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Davis, M.: Computability and Unsolvability. McGraw-Hill, New York (1958)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Feynman, R.P.: Simulating physics with computers. Int. J. Theor. Phys. 21, 467 (1982)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Floridi, L.: Against digital ontology. Synthese 168, 151 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fredkin, E.: Finite nature. In: Chardin, G., et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the XXVI Recontre de Moriond, March 22–28, 1992. Les Arcs, Savoie. Editiones Frontieres: Gif-Sur-Yvette, France (1992)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gardner, M.: Scientific American, February 1971. In: Gardner, M. (ed.) Wheels, Life and Other Mathematical Amusements. W.H. Freeman and Company, New York (1983)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gershenfeld, N.: The Physics of Information Technology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gut, A.: Probability: A Graduate Course, p. 97. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jaeger, G.: Quantum Information. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jaeger, G.: Entanglement, Information, and the Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). Section 3.5Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jaeger, G.: Quantum Objects. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jaeger, G.: On the identification of the parts of compound quantum objects. Found. Phys. 44, 709 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lloyd, S.: Universal quantum simulators. Science 273, 1073 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lloyd, S.: Computational capacity of the universe. Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 237901 (2002)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lloyd, L.: The universe as quantum computer (2013). arXiv:1312.4455v1Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Marchant, J.: In search of lost time. Nature 444, 534 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Margolus, N.: Looking at nature as a computer. Int. J. Theor. Phys. 32, 309 (2003)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Margolus, N., Levitin, L.B.: The maximum speed of dynamical evolution. In: Toffoli, T., Biafore, M., Leao, J. (eds.) PhysComp96, Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Physics and Computation. New England Complex Systems Institute, Boston (1996); Physica (Amsterdam) 120D, 188 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mittelstrass, J.: Nature and science in the Renaissance. In: Woolhouse, R.S. (ed.) Metaphysics and Philosophy of Science in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht (1988), pp. 17–44, Section 4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Petrov, P.: Church–Turing thesis is almost equivalent to Zuse–Fredkin thesis (an Argument in Support of Zuse–Fredkin Thesis). In: Proceedings of the 3rd WSEAS International Conference on Systems Theory and Scientific Computation, Special Session on Cellular Automata and Applications (ISTASC03), Rhodes Island (2003)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Popper, K.: The Open Universe, p. 116. Routledge, London (1988); Nature 444(7119), 534 (2006)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Snobelen, S.: The myth of the clockwork universe. In: Firestone, C.L., Jacobs, N. (eds.) The persistence of the Scared in Modern Thought. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame (2012)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sobel, D.: Longitude: The True Story of a Lone Genius Who Solved the Greatest Scientific Problem of His Time, Penguin Books, New York (1995), pp. 24–27Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    ’t Hooft, G.: The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Springer, Heidelberg (2017)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    The Bible (New International Version), Genesis 1:14Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tipler, F.: The Physics of Immortality. Anchor, New York (1997)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Turing, A.M.: On computable numbers, with an application to the Entscheidungsproblem. Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. 2 42, 230 (1936)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Turing, A.M.: Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind. Mach. 59, 433 (1950)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    von Neumann, J.: In: Burks, A.W. (ed.) Theory of Self-reproducing Automata. University of IL Press, Urbana (1966)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wheeler, J.A.: Information, physics, quantum: the search for links. In: Zurek, W. (ed.) Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information. Addison Wesley, Redwood City (1990)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wolfram, S.: A New Kind of Science. Wolfram Media, Champaign (2002)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zalka, C.: Simulating quantum systems on a quantum computer. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 454, 313 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zuse, K.: Rechnender raum. Elektronische Datenverarbeitung 8, 336 (1967)zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Quantum Communication and Measurement Laboratory, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering and Division of Natural Science and MathematicsBoston UniversityBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations