Talk:Digital physics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Physics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.

Help with this template Please rate this article, and then leave comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify its strengths and weaknesses.

the theory of digital physics is insufficiently and actually misleadingly described here - much needs to be done! On you again 18:25, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I tried to add generality; but needs more work. On you again 16:45, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps more references and links would help. For example, Wolfram's "A New Kind Of Science" or Fredkin's web site on digital physics. Alienus 21:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

What is the relationship to mathematical physics? --Ben 07:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why will rotational, translational, and Lorentz symmetry be broken if digital physics is hold?

I just read a few articles about digital physics and digital philosophy by Stephen Wolfram and others. Usual criticisms have something to do with symmetry breaking or contradiction of digital physics. I do NOT know why. Let me know~!

[edit] Merger

I am thinking of merging Digital philosophy and Computational universe theory into this page. Any reactions? 1Z 22:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC) They should definitely be merged, as they cover the same idea.--Gupst1 02:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Should NOT be merged. Digital physics is a branch of physics while Digital philosophy is a philosophy and a cultural phenomena discussing the 'matrix movie' and other crap. (Mitra 22:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC))
Digital physics has no chairs, departments, predictive theories or experimental results. It is a philosophical attitude adopted by some physicists. 1Z 14:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
It is a physical theory. See references in the article or just google it. --63.204.19.188 (talk) 06:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] continuous alternatives

The last section, "continuous alternatives", makes statements such as "it has been shown" without giving any sources for these contentions.James Haughton 03:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

More than that, I have no clue how some silly pattern that happens to show up in, what amounts to a screen saver, has anything to do with the topic at hand. That section needs some serious improvement. Gigs 11:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)