Nature Does Not Compute: Arguments Against the Computational Hypothesis

Abstract

The computational hypothesis establishes that all things in the universe compute, and having been first formulated in the so-called Zuse-Fredkin thesis, it has gained increasing adherents. Part of the scientific community adopts it as an assumption in their research, which is often understood as evidence in its favor. This is a naive sense of evidence, given that it presupposes a certain interpretation of phenomena to be classified as such. Therefore, a foundation is required. In this article, after reviewing a series of examples, we will present the three types of arguments offered in favor of that hypothesis: epistemological, theoretical, and ontological-epistemological. Subsequently, we detail why these arguments fail for various reasons, leading to the conclusion that neither nature nor objects compute.