In the end, the problem with the claim is that if it is true then 'computer' is defined so loosely as to be uninformative; as soon as you add plausible conditions, it seems obviously false.
According to the best physics, the universe: isnt programmable; doesn't evolve deterministically; isnt described by functions over integers; isn't electronic; doesnt transmit power through programmable operation; isn't abstract; doesnt have causal powers through mere arrangements of parts; .. and so on.
Whatever it could mean, "computer" here is a strange term. I've no idea why people are so keen on it.
I take it to be a sort of humean-idealist-passivist theory: the world is an abstract set of discrete states that are just mere arrangements with no necessary connections; there is only pattern in these discrete states; these patterns are abstract and can be realised by mere number alone.
This is roughly somehting like an early 20th C. logicial positivist view, which was somewhat influential -- but it's wholey false, and throw out in scientific practice
According to the best physics, the universe: isnt programmable; doesn't evolve deterministically; isnt described by functions over integers; isn't electronic; doesnt transmit power through programmable operation; isn't abstract; doesnt have causal powers through mere arrangements of parts; .. and so on.
Whatever it could mean, "computer" here is a strange term. I've no idea why people are so keen on it.
I take it to be a sort of humean-idealist-passivist theory: the world is an abstract set of discrete states that are just mere arrangements with no necessary connections; there is only pattern in these discrete states; these patterns are abstract and can be realised by mere number alone.
This is roughly somehting like an early 20th C. logicial positivist view, which was somewhat influential -- but it's wholey false, and throw out in scientific practice