https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1003.5831/Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.enMon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMThttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34304338urn:hackerpapers:mention:1003.5831:34304338Sun, 08 Jan 2023 23:05:09 GMT<p>&gt; QA is non-linear when discretised, so no, no one is &quot;replacing&quot; anything. I don&#x27;t know what any of this is referring to as I never mentioned &quot;replacing&quot; anything. &gt; There is no &quot;digital physics&quot;, it&#x27;s a PR term of a hype industry, not the title of any, eg., textbook on area of physics. Incorrect: A Computable Universe, https://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/8306#t... &gt; Physics is not computable to arbitrary precision, both chaos and qm require physics to use non-computable numbers. Also incorrect, and put most succinctly by Peter Shor [1]: Because of quantum mechanics and the…</p><p><a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1003.5831/">Paper and discussion history</a>. A mention is not an endorsement.</p>math.LOhttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7718614urn:hackerpapers:mention:1003.5831:7718614Fri, 09 May 2014 00:29:32 GMT<p>Wouldn&#x27;t that contradict http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.5831 which claims that the laws of physics are computable? To be honest, I&#x27;m just a layman so I might be misunderstanding something.</p><p><a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1003.5831/">Paper and discussion history</a>. A mention is not an endorsement.</p>math.LO