I personally have always had a very philosophical and logical approach to theoretical computer science, that reality in its absolute sense would in fact be a logical circuit. Do you think like me that the universe and all its complexity could be recreated by a Turing machine?
It’s not science when there is nothing in place that resembles the scientific method. I have only once seen the scientific method professionally in software, and that was many years ago doing A/B testing.<p>In most cases software appears to abhor anything remotely scientific, at least in the work place. Most developers cannot communicate their thoughts in writing, cannot measure things, and fear originality of both problem and solution. The result is the opposite of science: an environment the fears learning and races towards social conformance. When science does show its scary demon face it’s met with hostility and dismissal.
Turing himself showed that any Turing machine can compute any problem which is computable. So the question comes down to, <i>"Is the universe computable?"</i> It's a good philosophical question!<p>Religion says, "Yes, by a god who computes it all." Newtonian physics says, "Yes, by physical laws of matter." Quantum physics says, "No. The observed universe is a wave function that includes uncertainties."<p>I guess the theoretical comp sci question that intrigues me is the idea that all of it, including quantum physics, could be an Assassin's Creed-type simulation being run by something or somebody else.
Theoretic computer science for me composes the language and conceptual tools for computational resolve of uncertainties.<p>Uncertainties are really where it all starts right? Calculating orbits, or moments of force in support beams, or volumes and densities of meaningful materials. What parameters and features are involved in modeling and solving problems?<p>I bring harbinger of doom upon modern quantum computation. THE QUBIT IS A DEAD END!!! Quantum holography will kill it. There is more information capacity in the quantum domain than spin disposition.<p>I believe you could Turing complete any measure or simulation, however the true universe is a hyperdimensional/extradimentional (two different things) potential of existential being, decaying through entropy.<p>Think of those videos of fractal zoom. The Turing apparatus may zoom or pan or resolve infinitely, yet the Universe is such in all ways at all times. Further, locally bound matter has this property in a microcosm for itself, from which I think life and the big "c" of our amusing existence lurk.<p>So, nope.