Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I'm interested in the following question:

Is Nature computable at it's most fundamental level?

Can anyone suggest any works (books, papers / articles, reviews) related to the above question?

(I've also cross-posted on Computational Science SE.)

Some links (since this question is currently closed):

(1) The Relation between Mathematics and Physics, P. A. M. Dirac

share|cite|improve this question

closed as off topic by David Z Oct 28 '12 at 1:42

Questions on Physics Stack Exchange are expected to relate to physics within the scope defined by the community. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about reopening questions here.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

This question seems not to be appropriate for a few reasons: first, it's a list question, and it's not very focused; also, it was cross-posted, and also I'm not fully convinced it is on topic. I think it may be, but I would like it to be discussed by the community first. If it is to be reopened, for one thing, it should be changed from this "reference request" into a direct question. – David Z Oct 28 '12 at 1:44
List questions were never appropriate (in fact, this is supposed to be the case all across the SE network), we were just sort of lax about enforcing this in the early days of the site. I do agree that Theoretical Computer Science or Computer Science seems like the place where this sort of question is most likely to be on topic. – David Z Oct 28 '12 at 3:42
ps: My motivation for asking: Q: Is the search for a mathematically-formulated "fundamental" theory of physics (viz. a "theory of everything") ultimately a fruitful or fruitless one? (I.e. Is the book of Nature - to use Galileo's remark - actually written in the language of mathematics?) – UGPhysics Oct 28 '12 at 3:45
@UGPhysics in this case you should edit and retag the question such that everybody can see that you are asking about a theory of everything. After the edit you can flag your qestion for moderator attention and ask them to reopen it. – Dilaton Oct 28 '12 at 8:15
But what is the relation between being computable and being mathematical? And why would this be relevant for a TOE, but not for an incomplete theory? – Mitchell Porter Oct 28 '12 at 14:24

Computability and physical theories, R. Geroch and J. B. Hartle

Foundations of Physics Volume 16, Number 6 (1986)

share|cite|improve this answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.