Not saying you're wrong in the slightest, but why would our universe be like a computer? When our understanding of the universe was very primitive we thought everything was alive (animism). Then a little more technology and we thought the universe was like an orrery or a clock (mechanism)[0]. Then a little more and we think it was like a computer (turingism?) Occasionally you'll hear it's like a hologram, a simulation (what's it simulating?), a graph [1], or some other faddish concept.

We just like to make metaphors to put this thing in a box that we can't understand. But perhaps at its most fundamental level it will defy comprehension or even definition.

[0] In the philosophical sense; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanism_(philosophy)

[1] https://syncedreview.com/2020/04/17/stephen-wolfram-the-path...

What's the difference between a clock and a computer? And there's no difference between computer and computer simulation.

Being a hologram is something I see as a significantly different type of comment. That's about how a sphere of space is mathematically equivalent to a flat 2d shell using equivalent but warped physics. It doesn't change anything about the nature of the universe except sort of the number of dimensions. And it's orthogonal to those ideas.

I'm not sure how to categorize the graph thing but it's not widespread at all.

> why would our universe be like a computer?

Because information is fundamental.

Computers just so happen to be our best tools in the information domain.

> The particle of light is like a surf board, riding a wave and will always hit the shore in the interference pattern.

This is exactly Bohm's Pilot Wave theory that the article talks about. It has been debunked to some extent but I believe the debunking is still somewhat controversial for proponents. There are neat macro-level simulations of it called "Walking Droplets" if you search for them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave_theory

https://www.pml.unc.edu/walking-drops

But then every point in space has it's own clock, so you'd have gazzilions of tiny clocks instead of one big global clock that tickets for the entire universe/reality.

Or perhaphs if we do have one big global clock, your distance from it warps/distorts other parts of the reality at each point in space? Maybe there is a limit to how far this heartbeat travels (edge of the universe)?

You can also then ask, at what speed or clock cycle is reality "rendering" and is it the same speed everywhere? It would seem each point renders itself and there would be no big global processor doing the rendering.

Then finally if you really want to dig deep, ask why is it being rendered to begin with. Might need some psychedelics for this one instead of math.

What if there are no clocks nor any points, what if matter is just a condensate of frequencies/sound/harmonics - that is, there is a "great piano player" and the "sound" it emits is the universe, just a side effect. If it stops playing, the universe disappears/collapses into nothingness.

note: A point here referring to a point in a massive 3d grid of points.

That's why time slows down near heavy objects, there is more calculus to be done and don't want to drop frames.

>All computers require a clock to function. Why would our universe be any different?

Clocks are not required at all, even for digital computers. They only make designing computers a lot simpler.

Clockless computers don't have a global clock but they still have components that "tick".

Depending on the design, no more than abacus has components that "tick". And I'd never say an abacus requires a clock to function.

If even a single bit gets hung up in a straightforward clockless design, everything else waits for it.

None of that is really visible to something inside the computer, though. The OP is describing calculation steps, not clock cycles.

Assuming that it is true, what is the clock/cpu speed?

The released speed, or the overclocked speed? Let's face it, if the universe isn't overclocked, then we've got some serious hacking to do.

I would assume: 1 / 1 t_P (Planck time) ≈ 1.8549×10^43 Hz (hertz)