I was reading about interesting article here which suggests that our universe is a big computer simulation and the proof of it is a Quantum Physics.
I know quantum physics tries to provide some explanation about unpredictable behavior of universe at atomic scale but could not believe that thing has anyway relates to pixels of the universe ?
Can it be true that behavior of universe at atomic level coming from some super computer ?
No, quantum physics suggests no such thing. As Mark pointed out in his comment, the "article" you linked to is not an article at all; as far as I can tell, it's a promotional page for a science fiction novel. As actual science, it would be completely bogus.
I'm the author of the novel mentioned above and I'd like to clarify. Neither I nor my novel claim the universe is a computer.
The operating principle of the novel's universe is that all things are One through balance. The protagonist, Paul, is asked if his universe is a computer. He answers that in a balanced quantum universe this would be impossible. Why? Here's a direct quote from the page cited above: http://donnee.com/universe-as-computer.htm
"Calculation is a process, or time-dependent function. A balanced quantum universe is a holistic, non-local phenomenon. There is no time and no process. Balance simply is. Balance requires no computation. So, my initial response—that the universe is a quantum computer—is correct only from a classical, local perspective. From a holistic, non-local quantum perspective, the answer is: No, the universe is not a computer."
Enjoy.
While your reference does not quite meet the standards for scientific publishing ;), your question itself addresses a very profound notion. I disagree with the appraisal of any such notion of a computational universe as being dead on arrival. Some of the best minds in physics - Wheeler, Lloyd, Wolfram, Schmidhuber and others - have been strong advocates of this paradigm.
[This is not an attempt on my part to start, or indulge in any kind of war of words, but a simple statement of my opinion. Take it or leave it.]
Let me frame the question in a slightly less controversial form than the one you put it in Xinus:
Does it make sense to address the motions and interactions of elementary particles - working within the standard Hilbert space framework of quantum mechanics - from a computational perspective?
When put this way the question appears a little less shocking. I was planning to write more here but there is a wonderfully detailed wikipedia article on this very issue which can answer your query in a much more complete way than I could attempt here.
Cheers !
ps: btw the novel in question by Jim Wills looks very intriguing and happens to be free to read online. So thanks for that !
If the Church-Turing hypothesis applies to our universe, then this is equivalent to stating that the universe can be simulated on a computer. But just because it can be doesn't necessarily mean it is. This is an ontological question.
Epistemologically, we can never know for sure, and never will.
If quantum mechanics is purely a gadget for computing the output given some inputs, and we are forbidden to ask what happens in between, we might as well assume it's some black box computation mapping the inputs to the outputs probabilistically. In this abstract sense, computation is what quantum mechanics does, but this also applies to classical theories, and many other maps besides. But a computer is a physical substrate. Just because something is a computation doesn't necessarily mean it has a physical substrate, or a nonphysical substrate for that matter, but it doesn't rule that out either.
Even since Shanon linked information with entropy, there have always been speculations about the universe being run as a simulation and so on. John Preskill recently gave a talk at Holographic Cosmology 2.0 on this topic, I haven't seen the full talk yet, but just thought others might find this it interesting.
