I want you to think of a dream. In that dream you created things. If you have vivid dreams like me and many others your dreams contain objects that are solid, have weight, and operate–sometimes defying the laws of physics.

God gave us dreams to allow us to see how THOUGHT itself can create. The universe is not a computer program–it is pure thought. It actually has no substance–just as your dream actually has no substance although you could swear it does while your asleep. Is yellow really bright? Not to someone without eyes. Is rock really hard? Not to someone without a body. In a sense you could think of what God created as some type of program, in that rock is programmed to feel hard to us–but just as when you dream the rock is just thought.

The universe is sustained by God’s thought. If you wanted you dead he would not have to kill you–he could simply stop thinking of you. But unlike our dreams God has given that which he creates much independence. It can operate apart from him and has real life of its own. But make no mistake it resides in God’s thought–not in any physical place.

Scientists often state that miracles are impossible because of the laws of physics. But those laws were set by God and are just as meaningless as those laws are in our dreams. To turn water into wine, or to raise Christ is just as easy as it is in our dreams for God. Its no feat–its no miracle for him. The real miracle is that we invent new ways of denying him. In our arrogance we uncreate the one who created life. You have to really work to deny something so obvious. No mathematician in the world can reconcile the universe with the laws of probablity–and thats the *Result of the universe—its not even taking into account that it must have Laws to even begin running the program. A child can see the odds cannot be beat–Plus, the odds of something coming out of nothing in a spacetime universe are not even odds–they are Zero. God is not in Spacetime–it was his idea.

Like a child, and not like a know it all, ask Him tonight if Christ was real–and if he is— you will trust him—do that tonight and God promises he will not leave such an innocent heart in disbelief. Its not about a fact finding mission, a detective story–its about God revealing the truth to you supernaturally. Then you will really get a chance to experience the entire universe forever.

Dont think a witty retort—a clever response that you can impress yourself with–just ask God.

But, if we live in a quantum world, bounded by human intelligence, will not the computer accelerate the growth of human consciousness??

Also, there is a nice example of self-generated “computers”: the life itself, at least according to Maturana and others.

“If you are reincarnated, why do you care about where you are reincarnated?” he asked. “It sounds crazy because here we are touching issues we are not supposed to be touching in ordinary science. Can we be reincarnated?”

“People are not prepared for this discussion,” Dr. Linde said.

The above is kind of off-topic, but hey, we’re talking about whether the universe can be regarded as a computer.

(Actually, I think this notion can be very fruitful, if get the right handle on it. We don’t have it yet. Further elaboration will not fit in a blog comment…)

Right, it’s deep, and I agree with those who think we still haven’t solved Schrodinger’s Cat and the “collapse of the wave function.” I have seen descriptions/explanations of “decoherence” here and elsewhere, and they always use a fundamentally circular argument

Zurek:

New paradigms often take a long time to gain ground
Atomic theory of matter (which, until early XX century
was `just an interpretation’) is the case in point. Some of
the most tangible applications and consequences of new
ideas are difficult to recognize immediately. In the case
of atomic theory, Brownian motion is a good example
Even when the evidence is out there, it is often difficult
to decode its significance.
Decoherence and einselection are no exception. They
have been investigated for about two decades. They are
the only explanation of classicality that does not require
modifications of quantum theory…

DECOHERENCE, EINSELECTION,
AND THE QUANTUM ORIGINS OF THE CLASSICAL

arXiv:quant-ph/0105127 v3

“What kind of process would not count as a computer”

A process which cannot be effectively simulated by a computer would not count as a computer. So if you propose a physics theory based on things that are uncomputable it is probably false.
(The very precise scope of “effectively computed” is still a little disputed.)

On the positive side, processes that can be described by general computational models are potentially more complex and may allow richer modeling power than standard physics models. (If this is useful is left to be seen.)