Intractability Explains Physical Laws

The piece argues computational hardness is not just a practical limit but can itself explain physical reality. If classical simulation of quantum systems is exponentially hard, that supports many‑worlds; if time travel or nonlinear quantum mechanics grant absurd computation, that disfavors them; and some effective laws (e.g., black‑hole firewall resolutions, even the Second Law) may hold because violating them is computationally infeasible. This reframes which theories are plausible by adding a computational‑constraint layer to physical explanation. — It pushes physics and philosophy to treat computational limits as a principled filter on theories, influencing how we judge interpretations and speculative proposals.

Sources

10 quantum myths that must die in the new year

Ethan Siegel 2026.01.01 42% relevant

Both pieces push against romanticized, oversimplified readings of foundational physics: Siegel’s article strips popular myths about quantum behaviour (e.g., instantaneous entanglement, 'quantum consciousness'), which complements the existing idea that rigorous, formal constraints (like computational/intractability arguments) are necessary to judge physical theories rather than handwaving metaphors.

My talk at Columbia University: “Computational Complexity and Explanations in Physics”

Scott 2025.10.16 100% relevant

Aaronson’s abstract lays out three cases—Deutsch’s many‑worlds claim, 'absurd computational superpowers' from exotic physics, and Harlow‑Hayden’s firewall/Second Law arguments—as examples of complexity‑based explanation.