"In this metaphor we actually have a picture of the computational universe, a metaphor which I hope to make scientifically precise as part of a research program"
About this Quote
Lloyd is doing a very particular kind of intellectual seduction here: he’s admitting the idea starts as a metaphor, then promising to harden it into something you can calculate. The phrase “we actually have a picture” is a quiet flex. It suggests the metaphor isn’t merely decorative language but a usable model, one that already feels explanatory even before the equations arrive. That’s the tightrope of modern physics communication: you need imagery to move intuition forward, but too much imagery turns into cosmic poetry.
The subtext is a bid for legitimacy and funding in the most polite possible terms. “I hope to make scientifically precise” signals humility while also outlining a destination: testable claims, formal definitions, maybe even engineering payoffs. And “as part of a research program” is doing institutional work. It’s not a lone thinker riffing; it’s an agenda, a roadmap, a scaffolding for papers, grants, students, and a community that can argue about what “computational” means without collapsing into philosophy.
Context matters: Lloyd sits in the lineage of digital-physics speculation (Wheeler’s “it from bit,” Wolfram’s computational universe, information-theoretic approaches to quantum mechanics). He’s careful not to overclaim. The metaphor isn’t asserted as reality; it’s proposed as a productive lens that might become real science if it yields constraints, predictions, or new ways to unify energy, entropy, and information.
Why it works rhetorically is the controlled escalation: metaphor -> picture -> precision -> program. It turns a provocative worldview into a responsible scientific project, making ambition sound like method.
The subtext is a bid for legitimacy and funding in the most polite possible terms. “I hope to make scientifically precise” signals humility while also outlining a destination: testable claims, formal definitions, maybe even engineering payoffs. And “as part of a research program” is doing institutional work. It’s not a lone thinker riffing; it’s an agenda, a roadmap, a scaffolding for papers, grants, students, and a community that can argue about what “computational” means without collapsing into philosophy.
Context matters: Lloyd sits in the lineage of digital-physics speculation (Wheeler’s “it from bit,” Wolfram’s computational universe, information-theoretic approaches to quantum mechanics). He’s careful not to overclaim. The metaphor isn’t asserted as reality; it’s proposed as a productive lens that might become real science if it yields constraints, predictions, or new ways to unify energy, entropy, and information.
Why it works rhetorically is the controlled escalation: metaphor -> picture -> precision -> program. It turns a provocative worldview into a responsible scientific project, making ambition sound like method.
Quote Details
| Topic | Science |
|---|---|
| Source | Help us find the source |
More Quotes by Seth
Add to List





