3 ms·
I'm not assuming simulation. It's more of "if the universe can pack something that can predict the outcome of an NP-complete system (that is, the universe itse
by yakult 11y ago
I'm not assuming simulation. It's more of "if the universe can pack something that can predict the outcome of an NP-complete system (that is, the universe itself) in real-time into a relatively very tiny space, then either it's cheating or P=NP."
As for the assumptions, I agree. Hence it's wild guessing.
- spacehome 11y agoThen I misunderstood originally. If you're not assuming the universe is simulated and is instead "fundamental" (whatever that means), then who are you to put limits on its processing power?' I think you have a level-confusion here - the universe isn't packing computational machinery into itself. Remember that space-time is a part of this universe. If something is computing our universe, it has to hold the representation of space-time, too. The computation machinery isn't in here with us.
- yakult 11y agoIf 'fundamental' stuff gets to break P=/= NP, then I don't see why we can't do it in a computer, if only by aping the design. But then P=NP and things get weird.
- spacehome 11y agoI'm not sure why you keep mentioning NP and P. A problem being exponential doesn't mean it can't be computed. Maybe the universe does the calculations the hard way.