文章探讨了宇宙可能基于信息处理的观点，并呼吁科学界对相关议题进行更开放的讨论。作者认为，如果宇宙以类似人类理解的方式进行测量和信息处理，那么我们应该探讨其潜在的含义，如模拟假说和非计算机硬件的信息处理等。文章指出，一些物理学家可能对这类讨论持谨慎态度，但作者认为，如同数学家曾经对虚数的态度一样，对“未知”领域的探索可能带来新的科学发现。文章呼吁科学家们积极讨论，推动相关研究的常态化。

🤔 宇宙可能基于信息处理：文章的核心观点是，如果宇宙以类似人类理解的方式进行测量和信息处理，那么探讨其潜在含义是重要的。

🧐 模拟假说与信息处理：作者提到了模拟假说，以及可能存在非计算机硬件的信息处理的可能性，认为这些都值得进一步探讨。

😮‍💨 科学界讨论的现状：文章指出，一些物理学家可能对这类讨论持谨慎态度，认为其“不可知”或采取“闭嘴计算”的态度，但作者认为这种态度可能阻碍科学发展。

💡 历史经验的启示：作者以数学家接受虚数的例子为例，说明对看似“无意义”的领域进行探索，可能会带来新的科学发现。

👍 呼吁开放讨论：文章呼吁科学家们对该话题进行更开放的讨论，认为这将有助于推动科学进步。

Published on April 12, 2025 12:58 AM GMT

If the universe is likely to be based on information-processing, and if we know it recognizes measurement like humans recognize measurement—despite the fact that there is no reason to think the universe evolved through natural selection in a resource-limited environment to become intelligent—shouldn't we discuss the likely implications of this observation (such as being in a simulation as described in Bostrom's simulation hypothesis, the existence of some AI-similar-but-not-actual-computer-hardware-based information-processing, etc.)? The reason I ask is because I'm under the impression that a subset of theoretical physicists seem to possibly have some discomfort with such discussions. They sometimes say, 

"This topic is unknowable and nonsense, so there is no reason to discuss it," 

or they take the "shut up and calculate" approach. 

Yet as Edward Frenkel pointed out on a Lex Fridman podcast, mathematicians avoided imaginary numbers for centuries, but when they finally got over their discomfort and worked with these "nonsense" numbers, the numbers often cancelled out, which led to new mathematical proofs/truths. Wouldn't working with a potential simulation begin with assigning constants and variables for a hypothetical simulation like computer scientists do all the time? And couldn't we ask questions such as whether the information existed before the Big Bang? 

I'm sure that some physicists and computer scientists are already doing this, and I'm not saying that I have any unique ideas or insights. I'm only saying that it might benefit science if the topic became more accepted and commonplace among scientists. 

 

Editorial notes:

I'm intentionally did not "name names" because doing so would be mean-spirited and unnecessarily confrontational in my opinion. Also, I don't check LessWrong often, so I may not respond to any replies. I'm only making this post to do my part to help normalize this topic.

Discuss