417:
tensor algebra). The most elementary particles are ur and antiur, with eigenvalues plus and minus one (the simple alternative). Mathematically they are described by a complex 2-dimensional
Hilbert space, on which the hermitian matrices (the «observables") form a 4-dimensional real vector space. This real vector space carries a Minkowski form, i.e. a symmetric non-degenerate bilinear form of signature +--- in a natural way (this means as a "Killing" form of the Jordan algebra of these observables). So space-time comes in in a natural way, at least that one of special relativity. Space and time then are expressed by observables. But something we didn't understand: The "Killing" form, i.e. the invariant symmetric bilinear form of this Jordan algebra is constructed out of two elements of this Jordan algebra (not only one as for Lie algebras), i.e. there are two Hamiltonians. Hans Tilgner
481:. It works pretty much as the paragraph describes: if quantum bits are pseudorandom (as predicted by Schmidhuber in particular, I can add), then locality can be violated---i.e. spacelike/superluminal communication can be designed. Perhaps Schmidhuber's prediction can be saved by saying that beta-decay bits are compressible but only with relatively huge running times, but that rules out feasible testability of the prediction anyway. I myself haven't yet followed thru on a promise (to David Chalmers himself mentioned in the article) to raise this with his colleague Marcus Hutter, an associate of Schmidhuber's---though this page makes me expect he would already know of Yurtsever's general argument anyway. Anyway if you-all agree on its relevance you can add the citation.
84:
74:
53:
167:
wouldn't be here talking. Antropic principle again? Anyway isn't this a way to say that things are intrinsically discrete like in a computer image? In the classical picture stuff is described by continuous functions and it's infinitely divisible. The classical use of continuous functions could be the result of the tremendous success of calculus in the last 200 years more than an intrinsic need for them. Sorry for the intrusion.
22:
1412:, "Because of quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle, the value of a physical constant can't be defined to more than 60 or 70 digits. And any finite-precision number by definition is computable." If physical constants are by necessity precision-limited, then it follows that any computations that involve them are also precision-limited, and so can be computed on a digital computer.
1059:
1165:
1166:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hans-Joachim-Rudolph/project/Currently-working-on-a-special-kind-of-digital-particles-ie-operators-on-digital-particles-in-complex-space-time/attachment/573b4faf08aea7adff2f3ee1/AS:362779644055552@1463504815215/download/SS09+SE+CompHist.pdf?context=ProjectUpdatesLog
1396:
First, I don't see why digital physics would entail local hidden variables being observable. For instance, Bohmian mechanics has long been used in quantum chemistry (see review arXiv:1801.04781). Since these simulations take place on digital computers, is that not a direct refutation of the claims of
822:
A number—in particular a real number, one with an infinite number of digits—was defined by Turing to be computable if a Turing machine will continue to spit out digits endlessly. In other words, there is no "last digit". But this sits uncomfortably with any proposal that the universe is the output of
162:
As John
Archibald Wheeler puts it in the "Complexity, Entropy and the Physics of Information (Paperback) by Wojciech H. Zurek (Editor), 1990": "No continuum. No continuum in mathematics and therefore no continuum in physics. A half-century of development in the sphere of mathematical logic has made
1404:
I found a copy of "Clockwork
Rebooted", and here's a quote from its conclusion, "Although there is little question that, under appropriate conditions, it is logically possible that could be simulated given *unlimited* computational resources, the universe itself as a whole is better not identified
1350:
I was the one who reverted you. Your edit comment was "Bell theorem rules out only local hidden variables so the claim is incorrect as simulations using non-local hidden variables are fine and used in quantum chemistry". The paragraph you objected to said "...extant models of digital physics violate
694:
The first formal presentation of the idea that information might be the fundamental quantity at the core of physics seems to be due to
Frederick W. Kantor (a physicist from Columbia University). Kantor's book Information Mechanics (Wiley-Interscience, 1977) developed this idea in detail, but without
416:
C.F. von WeizsÇŽcker's Ur theory starts from three assumptions: (i) There is no physical theory beyond ordinary quantum mechanics (in
Hilbert space), (ii) the simpliest quantum mechanics are the basic elementary particles, and (iii) physics is constructed over them by means of quantum mechanics (i.e.
166:
I would like to add something to this: introductions to quantum mechanics often cite that "things" need to have a finite density of degrees of freedom to keep heat capacity finite. Otherwise thermodynamic equilibrium would never be reached, it would be very cold around us, life wouldn't exist and we
1138:
include any of that material. Knowledge (XXG) articles are based on secondary sources, not primary ones. That includes Seth Lloyd's speculations. We need evidence that other people, not the speculators themselves, care. This entire topic is one of — to put it charitably — marginal interest, so that
666:
Dr. Wheeler in 1985 was a visiting lecturer at
Columbia University and Dr. Frederick W. Kantor was in attendance as a guest. During the class Dr. Kantor posed a couple of questions related to his published book on "Information Mechanics" and Dr. Wheeler was reticent to discuss the matter during the
609:
Just a point which might seem trivial, Simulation is a term that can be used for a variety of Games as well as training tools. There are various
Simulators used by Militaries to teach people how to use equipment and kill an opposing force. In regards to gaming this generates the psychology that a
1388:
Yes there's confusion around this, but it's a fringe topic so no rush. The way I've presented it is maybe confusing, so I'll summarize my main points: 1. digital physics definitely requires hidden variables, but may or may not require *local* hidden variables, 2. even if digital physics requires
1104:
If one wants to discuss the need to change the
Prospective theories section feel free to do it here. A point of debate is whether we should use or replace two of the arXiv citations or not. I would argue since these are the original source of these theories we should include them. If we decide
1415:
Finally, there's always the superdeterminism loophole. As mentioned, even if the underlying substrate features local hidden variables, as long as the evolution law preserves certain invariants, this can show up as violations of Bell's inequalities. This is sort of what you see in Tim Palmer's
613:
I would suggest a preference towards the usage of the term "Emulation" and "Emulator" considering that
Emulation is usually an independent working model run on a different platform. If a person was emulated they would therefore be as real as you or I and not seen as expendable cannon fodder.
392:
proposed the theory of ur-alternatives in his book "Einheit der Natur" (1971) and further developed it in his book "Zeit und Wissen" (1992). The theory is an example of digital physics as it axiomatically constructs quantum physics from the distinction between empirically observable, binary
1392:
I agree that "extant" models I'm aware of are not explicitly non-local so I'll leave #1 as-is. The citation I provided is evidence of #3 and provides further references of earlier publications, so I'll just jot down the facts I'm aware of for #2 and you can do with that what you
741:
Logically, from the perspective of digital physics, life and artificial life become indistinguishable. I've not yet found any significant reference material highlighting this, but I feel it is a very significant consequence of the theory and perhaps worth a mention. Thoughts?
1423:
I don't think all of the above should be in the article on this fringe topic, I just want to make the case that the current wording about its incompatibility with observations is a bit misleading, because it leaves the impression that experiments have ruled it out.
1400:
The citation proves only that digital physics may require a preferred frame of reference. Covariant
Bohmian mechanics also requires this, but this preferred frame is not observable, so again, not really a problem as it doesn't violate relativity even if it's
667:
lecture. After the lecture's end Dr. Kantor approached Dr. Wheeler again but was rebuffed when Dr. Wheeler stated that he was not "smart enough" to understand about what Dr. Kantor was talking. Apparently, however, later on he adopted Dr. Kantor's ideas.
569:
sounds odd to me. What is "real time" in this case? Surely it doesn't matter how fast or slow the computer is calculating our universe - we would experience it just the same. Or is it saying that such a computer could exist within
1206:.) I grow increasingly doubtful that there is a well-defined subject here, rather than a collection of ideas that sound vaguely related and are mentioned together in the marginal venues where they get discussed at all.
1368:
that some do not. We must resolve the conflict in the article. I'll take a look at it later; I don't have time right now. Resolving it may require someone with access to both sources and/or some expertise in the
1405:
as a computer". In other words, "the universe as a digital computer" is maybe not so useful a model, but a universal Turing machine, being an unlimited digital computer, can nonetheless simulate the universe.
1374:
It comes down to these questions: Do the sources disagree with one another? Is one just out of date? Are they talking about different things? Are the models that don't involve local variables not "extant"?--
1309:
Are there reliable sources that use the term "digital ontology"? The article cites sources that use "digital physics" and "digital philosophy". Is there evidence about which term(s) are commonly used in the
1189:
Well, a random PDF on ResearchGate which is so sloppy that it cites Knowledge (XXG) as a source definitely shouldn't be a source for a Knowledge (XXG) article. If anything, the fact that the 2016 paper in
372:
More than that, I have no clue how some silly pattern that happens to show up in, what amounts to a screen saver, has anything to do with the topic at hand. That section needs some serious improvement.
1460:
1067:
1331:
Regarding my revision 1132443124 that was reverted, I still don't think that the text as currently phrased is correct. My intent was to make clear that digital physics does not
561:
I have only a passing knowledge of this kind of physics (it goes in, lights up my brain, puts a smile on my face, then slowly leaks away after five minutes), but this line:
1258:
979:
975:
961:
140:
745:
I feel that until some citable liturature comes about, we should hold off on writing that section. I do agree, however, that it should be included in this article.
1198:
calls into question why we have an article about the subject at all. We really shouldn't be writing such an analysis if one does not exist elsewhere first; that's
1364:
Your edit today cites a source, which is good, but it creates a conflict in the article. The article cannot both say that extant models involve local variables
565:
Digital physics suggests that there exists, at least in principle, a program for a universal computer which computes the evolution of the universe in real time.
662:
An IP placed this anecdote on the mainpage. I removed it and am reproducing it here for review if people are interested or think something should be salvaged:
1389:
local hidden variables this is not necessarily inconsistent with existing no-go theorems, and 3. digital physics can also preserve the symmetries we observe.
927:
1455:
265:
Digital physics has no chairs, departments, predictive theories or experimental results. It is a philosophical attitude adopted by some physicists.
130:
1215:
1152:
1123:
878:
1143:, the fact that sources were used on another page doesn't mean that they are acceptable here; in fact, they should have been removed from there.
189:
1105:
strictly against the use of arXiv we can use the articles from peer-reviewed journals or review articles referencing the same material such as
83:
702:
1359:", and was supported by a reference. Your edit, as justified by the edit comment, was therefore presumably contradicted by the cited source.
1051:
106:
1450:
1088:
778:
720:
424:
362:
The last section, "continuous alternatives", makes statements such as "it has been shown" without giving any sources for these contentions.
1409:
1243:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
851:
590:
445:
301:
535:
1199:
610:"simulated" person is expendable, after all you can just "add more quarters" on death or not worry about realworld consequences.
389:
97:
58:
1038:
33:
542:
to be the first academic work where this neologism appeared (page 205). I think this fact merits inclusion in the article. --
185:
157:
1299:
348:
206:
928:
https://web.archive.org/web/20080807173904/http://puhep1.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/QM/lloyd_nature_406_1047_00.pdf
574:
universe? Wouldn't that be impossible, since it would have to be emulating itself, emulating itself, emulating itself...
1022:
1234:
1180:
1119:
539:
479:
158:
Should 'Physical symmetries are continuous' / 'Physical theory requires the continuum' be removed from the Criticism?
931:
978:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
1083:
706:
428:
1295:
1244:
782:
724:
701:
pretty early on in the life of the page, and, as you can see it lack any citation. Seems like self-promotion.
621:
344:
163:
it clear that there is no evidence supporting the belief of the existing character of the number continuum.".
39:
827:
This kind of writing just seems to swim around in a kind of soft-focus version of actual scientific thought.
449:
1417:
1013:
919:
893:
855:
594:
475:
A relevant citation is Ulvi Yurtsever, "Quantum Mechanics and Algorithmic Randomness", early arxiv versions
305:
1111:
441:
420:
173:
21:
1267:
1176:
1115:
547:
516:
the "Criticism rebutted" section is crap. it needs to be rewritten from scratch in an encyclopedic way. --
393:
alternatives. Weizsäcker used it to derive the 3-dimensionality of space and to estimate the entropy of a
337:, I guess? It's "physics", just like how Aristotle wrote a book "physics" even though it wasn't following
1175:
For mentions of Lloyd's, Zizzi's and digital physics theories in general instead of the arXiv articles ?
617:
1211:
1184:
1148:
997:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
985:
765:
764:
I am surprised that this doesn't appear in this article, even though it is given its own section on the
750:
648:
579:
521:
406:
181:
105:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
918:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
1070:
until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –
1106:
952:
497:
238:
1425:
1379:
1336:
1315:
1247:
after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1071:
675:
501:
438:
Wasn't Einheit der Natur the first mention, published in '71 before the translation into English?
363:
177:
1429:
1340:
889:
234:
214:
202:
982:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
998:
1263:
1170:
1160:
543:
486:
338:
213:
22:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC) They should definitely be merged, as they cover the same idea.--
1207:
1144:
1039:
https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/physicists-find-we-re-not-living-in-a-computer-simulation
746:
644:
575:
517:
402:
266:
210:
1005:
885:
343:
Digital physics could be considered philosophy, just like Stoic and aristotelian "physics"
1352:
1277:
911:
230:
842:
5. So the universe can't compute numbers if they are real numbers and it is a computer.
237:
is a philosophy and a cultural phenomena discussing the 'matrix movie' and other crap. (
1375:
1311:
1157:
Ok so would you agree rewriting the prospective theories section based on sources like:
964:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
671:
460:
Regarding "Some argue that the models of digital physics violate various postulates..."
89:
1043:
1004:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
971:
1444:
334:
823:
a virtual-reality exercise carried out in real time (or any plausible kind of time).
496:
Sure the pseudorandom sequence is one per simulated universe, not per quantum bit.
482:
773:
section, in the paragraph "Proponents of digital physics..."; if not, maybe under
476:
1063:
874:
73:
52:
970:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
932:
http://puhep1.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/QM/lloyd_nature_406_1047_00.pdf
398:
79:
300:
It is a physical theory. See references in the article or just google it. --
1335:
local hidden variables, which is the clear implication of the current text.
464:
that the models of digital physics violate various postulates..."": -->
374:
1287:
870:
836:
3. Neither the number nor the Turing machine ever comes to a conclusion.
737:
Is it worth mentioning resolution of the duality artificial life vs life?
1433:
1383:
1344:
1319:
1303:
1271:
1127:
1094:
1058:
1027:
897:
859:
786:
754:
728:
710:
679:
652:
625:
598:
583:
551:
525:
505:
490:
453:
432:
410:
377:
366:
352:
309:
269:
241:
217:
1291:
805:
102:
1068:
Knowledge (XXG):Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 1#It from bit
394:
1107:
https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/9789814374309_0029
833:
2. A number is computable if the Turing machine just never stops.
719:
What do you mean by lack of citation? The book exists: google it.
330:
830:
1. A real number = a number with an infinite number of digits.
1357:
belonging to the class of theories with local hidden variables
15:
937:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the
688:
Good you removed it. I'm also skeptical about this paragraph
1171:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11047-009-9115-2
1161:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10670-016-9866-y
922:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
803:
Beane, Silas R; Davoudi, Zohreh; Savage, Martin J., 2012,
1202:. (The authors of that paper only claim to fill the gap
635:
I think this xkcd comic sums up the theory pretty well:
1282:
1140:
915:
643:
but probably doesn't have a place in the main article.
638:
1062:
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
806:
Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation
101:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
1044:
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/9/e1701758
974:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
589:The article is full of this kind of odd thinking.
960:This message was posted before February 2018.
839:4. This could never be computed in real time.
1461:Stub-Class physics articles of Low-importance
1196:no systematic analysis of all digital physics
848:7. So the universe is not really a computer.
329:Digital physics is "physics" in the sense of
8:
1233:The following is a closed discussion of a
1139:is an uphill argument to make. Regarding
910:I have just modified one external link on
768:page. It might warrant a reference in the
47:
19:
888:if there are any volunteers to rewrite.
796:
49:
1203:
1195:
845:6. But the universe sits comfortably.
949:to let others know (documentation at
7:
1252:The result of the move request was:
95:This article is within the scope of
115:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Physics
38:It is of interest to the following
1194:did a literature review and found
771:Physical symmetries are continuous
14:
914:. Please take a moment to review
884:This is a definite candidate for
209:into this page. Any reactions?
1057:
512:the "Criticism rebutted" section
82:
72:
51:
20:
1456:Low-importance physics articles
1066:. The discussion will occur at
135:This article has been rated as
506:08:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
491:03:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
242:22:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
1:
1226:Requested move 3 October 2022
1028:03:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
873:is, at heart, describable by
526:23:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
390:Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker
353:16:51, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
233:is a branch of physics while
207:Computational universe theory
190:00:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
109:and see a list of open tasks.
1434:17:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
1384:22:59, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
1345:18:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
1272:09:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
1100:Prospective Theories section
653:01:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
626:13:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
552:10:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
378:11:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
270:14:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
118:Template:WikiProject Physics
1451:Stub-Class physics articles
1320:04:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
1304:23:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
729:17:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
680:18:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
1477:
1134:No, that's exactly why we
991:(last update: 5 June 2024)
907:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
860:01:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
787:05:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
599:01:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
584:19:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
538:by Gualtiero Piccinini is
310:06:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
141:project's importance scale
1095:17:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
755:20:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
454:19:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
384:Theory of Ur-Alternatives
367:03:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
218:02:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
201:I am thinking of merging
134:
67:
46:
1240:Please do not modify it.
1216:01:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
1185:00:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
1153:23:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
1128:23:17, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
1052:Redirects for discussion
1050:"It from bit" listed at
898:03:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
711:05:29, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
478:, final journal version
433:12:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
411:20:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
333:as per the immanence of
1418:Invariant set postulate
903:External links modified
605:Simulation Vs Emulation
358:continuous alternatives
698:
669:
388:Just added: Physicist
229:Should NOT be merged.
28:This article is rated
766:Simulation Hypothesis
760:Additional Proponents
691:
664:
32:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
972:regular verification
639:http://xkcd.com/505/
1296:FatalSubjectivities
962:After February 2018
941:parameter below to
877:, and is therefore
695:mathematical rigor.
531:Pancomputationalism
345:FatalSubjectivities
98:WikiProject Physics
1286:– Is this page on
1016:InternetArchiveBot
967:InternetArchiveBot
235:Digital philosophy
203:Digital philosophy
34:content assessment
1262:
1259:non-admin closure
1177:GreatContributor1
1141:this edit summary
1116:GreatContributor1
1114:comment added by
992:
536:This dissertation
444:comment added by
423:comment added by
339:scientific method
193:
176:comment added by
155:
154:
151:
150:
147:
146:
1468:
1397:incompatibility?
1285:
1283:Digital ontology
1256:
1242:
1130:
1091:
1086:
1061:
1026:
1017:
990:
989:
968:
956:
809:
801:
472:
471:
467:
456:
435:
192:
170:
123:
122:
121:physics articles
119:
116:
113:
92:
87:
86:
76:
69:
68:
63:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
1476:
1475:
1471:
1470:
1469:
1467:
1466:
1465:
1441:
1440:
1420:, for instance.
1353:quantum physics
1329:
1327:Local variables
1324:
1281:
1278:Digital physics
1238:
1228:
1109:
1102:
1089:
1084:
1055:
1035:
1020:
1015:
983:
976:have permission
966:
950:
920:this simple FaQ
912:Digital physics
905:
867:
819:
814:
813:
812:
802:
798:
775:Further reading
770:Criticism-: -->
762:
739:
703:199.104.151.215
660:
633:
607:
559:
533:
514:
473:
469:
465:
463:
462:
439:
418:
397:falling into a
386:
360:
231:Digital physics
199:
194:
171:
160:
120:
117:
114:
111:
110:
88:
81:
61:
29:
12:
11:
5:
1474:
1472:
1464:
1463:
1458:
1453:
1443:
1442:
1439:
1438:
1437:
1436:
1421:
1413:
1406:
1402:
1398:
1394:
1390:
1371:
1370:
1361:
1360:
1334:
1328:
1325:
1323:
1322:
1275:
1250:
1249:
1235:requested move
1229:
1227:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1173:
1168:
1163:
1158:
1101:
1098:
1054:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1041:
1034:
1031:
1010:
1009:
1002:
935:
934:
926:Added archive
904:
901:
866:
863:
818:
815:
811:
810:
795:
794:
790:
779:132.170.57.103
761:
758:
738:
735:
734:
733:
732:
731:
721:86.183.238.214
714:
713:
697:
696:
690:
689:
684:
659:
656:
632:
629:
606:
603:
602:
601:
567:
566:
558:
555:
532:
529:
513:
510:
509:
508:
461:
458:
425:194.94.224.254
385:
382:
381:
380:
364:James Haughton
359:
356:
327:
326:
325:
324:
323:
322:
321:
320:
319:
318:
317:
316:
315:
314:
313:
312:
283:
282:
281:
280:
279:
278:
277:
276:
275:
274:
273:
272:
252:
251:
250:
249:
248:
247:
246:
245:
198:
195:
169:
159:
156:
153:
152:
149:
148:
145:
144:
137:Low-importance
133:
127:
126:
124:
107:the discussion
94:
93:
90:Physics portal
77:
65:
64:
62:Low‑importance
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1473:
1462:
1459:
1457:
1454:
1452:
1449:
1448:
1446:
1435:
1431:
1427:
1422:
1419:
1414:
1411:
1407:
1403:
1399:
1395:
1391:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1381:
1377:
1373:
1372:
1367:
1363:
1362:
1358:
1354:
1349:
1348:
1347:
1346:
1342:
1338:
1332:
1326:
1321:
1317:
1313:
1308:
1307:
1306:
1305:
1301:
1297:
1293:
1289:
1284:
1279:
1274:
1273:
1269:
1265:
1260:
1255:
1248:
1246:
1241:
1236:
1231:
1230:
1225:
1217:
1213:
1209:
1205:
1201:
1197:
1193:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1182:
1178:
1174:
1172:
1169:
1167:
1164:
1162:
1159:
1156:
1155:
1154:
1150:
1146:
1142:
1137:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1129:
1125:
1121:
1117:
1113:
1108:
1099:
1097:
1096:
1092:
1087:
1081:
1080:
1077:
1074:
1069:
1065:
1060:
1053:
1049:
1045:
1042:
1040:
1037:
1036:
1032:
1030:
1029:
1024:
1019:
1018:
1007:
1003:
1000:
996:
995:
994:
987:
981:
977:
973:
969:
963:
958:
954:
948:
944:
940:
933:
929:
925:
924:
923:
921:
917:
913:
908:
902:
900:
899:
895:
891:
890:Rolf H Nelson
887:
882:
880:
876:
872:
864:
862:
861:
857:
853:
852:178.38.85.195
849:
846:
843:
840:
837:
834:
831:
828:
825:
824:
816:
808:
807:
800:
797:
793:
789:
788:
784:
780:
776:
772:
767:
759:
757:
756:
752:
748:
743:
736:
730:
726:
722:
718:
717:
716:
715:
712:
708:
704:
700:
699:
693:
692:
687:
686:
685:
682:
681:
677:
673:
668:
663:
657:
655:
654:
650:
646:
641:
640:
636:
631:Relevant xkcd
630:
628:
627:
623:
619:
615:
611:
604:
600:
596:
592:
591:178.38.85.195
588:
587:
586:
585:
581:
577:
573:
564:
563:
562:
556:
554:
553:
549:
545:
541:
537:
530:
528:
527:
523:
519:
511:
507:
503:
499:
495:
494:
493:
492:
488:
484:
480:
477:
468:
459:
457:
455:
451:
447:
446:91.85.221.168
443:
436:
434:
430:
426:
422:
414:
412:
408:
404:
400:
396:
391:
383:
379:
376:
371:
370:
369:
368:
365:
357:
355:
354:
350:
346:
341:
340:
336:
335:Stoic physics
332:
311:
307:
303:
302:63.204.19.188
299:
298:
297:
296:
295:
294:
293:
292:
291:
290:
289:
288:
287:
286:
285:
284:
271:
268:
264:
263:
262:
261:
260:
259:
258:
257:
256:
255:
254:
253:
243:
240:
236:
232:
228:
227:
226:
225:
224:
223:
222:
221:
220:
219:
216:
212:
208:
204:
196:
191:
187:
183:
179:
175:
168:
164:
142:
138:
132:
129:
128:
125:
108:
104:
100:
99:
91:
85:
80:
78:
75:
71:
70:
66:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
1365:
1356:
1330:
1276:
1264:Adumbrativus
1253:
1251:
1239:
1232:
1200:basic policy
1191:
1135:
1110:— Preceding
1103:
1078:
1075:
1072:
1056:
1033:new results?
1014:
1011:
986:source check
965:
959:
946:
942:
938:
936:
909:
906:
883:
868:
850:
847:
844:
841:
838:
835:
832:
829:
826:
821:
820:
804:
799:
791:
774:
769:
763:
744:
740:
683:
670:
665:
661:
642:
637:
634:
616:
612:
608:
571:
568:
560:
544:Omnipaedista
534:
515:
474:
440:— Preceding
437:
415:
387:
361:
342:
328:
200:
165:
161:
136:
96:
40:WikiProjects
1408:I'll quote
1245:move review
1064:It from bit
953:Sourcecheck
875:information
747:Astropiloto
518:Aaronshavit
419:—Preceding
403:Discrepancy
172:—Preceding
1445:Categories
1410:Peter Shor
1254:Not moved.
1208:XOR'easter
1192:Erkenntnis
1145:XOR'easter
1023:Report bug
879:computable
557:Real time?
399:black hole
30:Stub-class
1376:Srleffler
1312:Srleffler
1204:partially
1136:shouldn't
1006:this tool
999:this tool
792:Reference
672:SamuelRiv
540:purported
1426:Naasking
1337:Naasking
1310:field?--
1288:ontology
1124:contribs
1112:unsigned
1012:Cheers.—
871:universe
658:anecdote
442:unsigned
421:unsigned
186:contribs
178:Pepicima
174:unsigned
1401:"ugly".
1333:require
1292:physics
1073:Laundry
939:checked
916:my edit
817:Off key
618:Stryder
483:KWRegan
139:on the
112:Physics
103:Physics
59:Physics
1369:field.
947:failed
886:WP:TNT
865:WP:TNT
395:proton
331:ontics
215:Gupst1
197:Merger
36:scale.
1393:will.
1076:Pizza
869:"the
645:David
576:David
498:Mitra
239:Mitra
1430:talk
1380:talk
1351:...
1341:talk
1316:talk
1300:talk
1268:talk
1212:talk
1181:talk
1149:talk
1120:talk
943:true
894:talk
856:talk
783:talk
751:talk
725:talk
707:talk
676:talk
649:talk
622:talk
595:talk
580:talk
548:talk
522:talk
502:talk
487:talk
466:edit
450:talk
429:talk
407:talk
375:Gigs
349:talk
306:talk
205:and
182:talk
1366:and
1290:or
980:RfC
957:).
945:or
930:to
881:."
572:our
413:.
131:Low
1447::
1432:)
1382:)
1355:,
1343:)
1318:)
1302:)
1294:?
1280:→
1270:)
1237:.
1214:)
1183:)
1151:)
1126:)
1122:•
1093:)
1090:c̄
1079:03
993:.
988:}}
984:{{
955:}}
951:{{
896:)
858:)
785:)
777:.
753:)
727:)
709:)
678:)
651:)
624:)
597:)
582:)
550:)
524:)
504:)
489:)
452:)
431:)
409:)
401:.
351:)
308:)
267:1Z
211:1Z
188:)
184:•
1428:(
1378:(
1339:(
1314:(
1298:(
1266:(
1261:)
1257:(
1210:(
1179:(
1147:(
1118:(
1085:d
1082:(
1025:)
1021:(
1008:.
1001:.
892:(
854:(
781:(
749:(
723:(
705:(
674:(
647:(
620:(
593:(
578:(
546:(
520:(
500:(
485:(
470:]
448:(
427:(
405:(
347:(
304:(
244:)
180:(
143:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
