> to surmise that our universe is computable by a deterministic computer program

Please an expert chime in to complement, but I believe simulation in quantum mechanics is a quite interesting and not so simple topic.

I believe the more correct thing to say is that quantum mechanics is approximable than simply computable. Don't forget, QM and current physical theories use real numbers, which are not digitally representable; although it seems also the case that information is locally bounded. The finite distribution of states and probabilistic dynamics is I believe is fundamentally what makes information bounded, (which forbids for example naive hypercomputation and I think several paradoxes that might arise from unbounded local information) but don't forget in general the dynamics is still based on continuous quantities as far as we know, not discrete quantities like in a computer. QM is about discrete states within a continuum set interacting with continuum dynamics, I think is accurate to say. Quantum field theory probably complicates things more but similar conclusions might be valid. This continuum dynamics can't be computed exactly, at most you could achieve a pretty good approximation; you'd also need to provision probabilities, either from pseudorandomness (which technically would invalidate the probabilistic model, although in practice this invalidation is not feasibly distinguishable by an observer of current human-scale computing power) or gathering environmental noise.

It's really interesting to me how nature is kind of surprising and defiant of simple hypothesis we come up with. But I think each of those characteristics plays a role, is an important part of existence somehow, and we should keep trying to understand why each aspect of nature is the particular way it is for their numerous insights into our condition and existence.

The argument that the Z3 is universal "was an impressive party trick, but diverged entirely from the way the machine was designed, how it was actually used, or indeed from anything that would have made sense in the 1940s."

Source: ENIAC in Action p255.

I think Zuse is underrated because he worked pretty much alone. The other names and particularly Von Nuemann were prolific collaborators apart from being very good at what they do. There’s probably a takeaway from how this turned out.

>I would think that the German state or EU should provide funding for his museum. If that's not the case, it's a shame.

There is another Museum of his, which is still funded.

Konrad Zuse also seems to have been a pioneer in the concept of self-replication and self assembly.

Check out this cool crank-powered self-assembling tower thing that he made: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odwgpKRnWM8&t=1s

And his work on self replication: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pxv4vDMOFCo

I know very little about Zuse or his work and I lament that this museum is closing down as I am moving to Europe next year and had intended to use the opportunity to research his work.

Neil Gershenfeld has a quip that "computer science is the worst thing to happen to both computers and science because it prematurely froze the model of computation around 1950s designs' and I think there's some truth to this. The resource limitations that Zuse experienced in Germany during the depression and war that forced him down a design path of mechanical design over electromechanical and exposed him to the more fundamental idea that computation is ultimately a physical process -- 'there's no such thing as software just different states of hardware'. I have a feeling that the next big technological revolution will be based around self-replicating machines that more fully unify computation with matter.

There are also no physical observations that contradict the notion of God. The problem is that no such observations are even possible, or at least no test they could be put to that could disprove the theory.

> there are no physical observations which contradict Zuse's notion, as he wrote it, of a computable universe.

There is no model capable of simulating the universe either.

I also wonder what such an observation would have to look like. Observations per se are unique and recorded and therefore can be reconstructed via trivial computation. Which brings us to the laws of physics. You may believe that they are utterly wrong and the universe is deterministic after all, but then the burden of proof is upon you.

You missed some important points that explain why he's not celebrated.

His efforts received enormous amounts of funding from the Nazis.

Much of his specialized 'computers' were explicitly for the war effort, including planes.

He was a big fan of utilizing computing for racial and genealogy research. The Nazis had plans drawn out to murder orders of magnitude more people based on this sort of research had they won (Generalplan Ost).

It was not like he was forced at gunpoint to participate, he was all in for the funding. Much like Von Braun, but did not have the luck to be paperclipped.

Indeed. I've lived in Germany for 25 years, and I had to Google where it is. If 10% of the local town came to visit every year, that'd still only produce 8 visitors per day. The numbers just don't make sense.

Funny you should mention it, I was aware of the Zuse museum and figured I'd jump on a train next time I was in Berlin to go check it out. (In fairness, I've been thinking this the past four or five times I've gone to Berlin, on the assumption the museum would only get better while I procrastinated...)

Anyway, three minutes ago, after reading about the museum's likely fate (sigh!) on HN, I've booked tickets to Berlin in October.

Hoyerswerda or bust!

The work of Zuse is way out of the danger zone, isn't it? Mobile phones with LCDs are in the danger zone, or the phone booth, but not the first working computers ever build.

On behalf of all Americans, I would like to apologize that our propaganda prevented you from reading the article and understanding that the Museum has existed for his work for some time. Furthermore, I apologize that our propaganda is so strong that not even the Deutsche themselves could overcome it to learn about one of their own scientists, visit and financially support the museum of one of their countrymen.

I guess its only a matter of time until we put the final nail in Röntgen's coffin and the Deutsche finally start using the proper term: X-rays.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konrad-Zuse-Museum_H%C3%BCnfel...

Apart from a quite a few museums having his machines (or replicas).

What's the American propaganda piece of it?

I think Hoyerswerda is to this day best known for something that happened in the early 90s: Local neo-nazis rioted against and physically attacked some foreign contract workers and asylum seekers while the local police watched and did nothing.

That's exactly what I was going to say. I saw that pretty nice exhibit on Zuse in the Deutsches Technikmuseum. Perhaps it could be merged in? (Although I doubt it's that simple)

Yes the Berlin exhibit is really well done with some beautiful artifacts well displayed and explained. The Z1 replica is a marvel: Zuse himself built in 1989.

IIRC they also have sensible documentatioin about his Nazi connections that puts this work into appropriate context.

The reason the German gdpr watchdog is not complaining about Heise is because what they are doing is completely legal: you can still disable the tracking with the "more options" below.

Current legal doctrine is that _forcing_ payment (i.e. cash for privacy) is not allowed, that does not mean you cannot offer a subscription that disables tracking: you just have to offer a free option as well, which they do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z1_(computer)

Playlist showcasing the current restoration work: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLtpOUadaBh31n6Pdscwhwopmh...