8 ms·

A complete simulation would require infinite means to process, memorize and exhibit. It is safe to assume that these infinite means could not exist. So, just l

A complete simulation would require infinite means to process, memorize and exhibit. It is safe to assume that these infinite means could not exist. So, just like a physic's simulation that uses limited means, say like floating points, exception cases need to be taken care of (like detecting resting-cases in physics and then clamping floats to a small epsilon in order to avoid weird reactions). The treatment of these exception cases would add discontinuities in the physical behaviours we observe. For example, in a simulation, a force like gravity would be explained as: F = G (m1m2/r2), unless r is very close to 0 in which case F=0. In our reality, the "unless" part does not exist, in fact, if you have this exception, it is actually a symptom that your formula or approach might not be the perfect one. In our reality there are no glitches nor can we detect means by which glitches where avoided, in fact it is quite the opposite, metaphysics seem to exhibit an undeniable amount of coherency and consistency. I'm not convinced by the simulation argument at all.

benjohnson 10y ago
>>A complete simulation would require infinite means to process, memorize and exhibit. True - but a perhaps a clever simulation could concentrate it's computing near the observers and approximate distant or non-observed events.
- JohnLeTigre 10y ago
  That would be clever, but you would probably still notice discontinuities between the distant and close objects. But more importantly, the laws of physics would be observably non consistent.
  - benjohnson 10y ago
    Indeed! But ff you did notice discontinuities, the simulation could reverse and readjust the simulation until you don't notice.
    - JohnLeTigre 10y ago
      Anything can exist in that circumstance, feels like a reductio ad absurdum. I didn't go this far, so I'll have to think more about it. thanks for the food for thought.
  - antisthenes 10y ago
    > But more importantly, the laws of physics would be observably non consistent. Isn't that what's happening during our observation of the galactic rotation curve? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve
lucozade 10y ago
By a small epsilon do you mean something like there being a lower limit to how much we could measure, say, position and momentum concurrently? Would you expect the glitches to appear as random events if you look too closely? 'Cos until you wrote this I didn't think it was likely that we were in a sim. Now you've made me question that...
- JohnLeTigre 10y ago
  for example, floating point numbers can only hold a specific amount of decimal points, so very small numbers would end up becomming zero, leading to tons of divisions by zero or NAN's ect. In order to avoid these glitches we need to clamp these numbers to values that are very close to zero and basically stop simulating the objects concerned until we detect that these objects move again. Although this is an example, an imperfect process would have an upper and lower limit of numerical representation, requiring patches to limit glitches. patches would be detectable in a simulation.
  - lucozade 10y ago
    > patches would be detectable in a simulation As limits. We have those, or at least our accepted view of physics has both lower and upper bounds on what we can know. How are they that different from what you're suggesting?
    - JohnLeTigre 10y ago
      It's not so much about limits or bounds, they do exist. It's about limits or bounds that are incongruent with how physics normaly works in reality (patches would always do that), for lack of a better expression, I call these metaphysical inconsistencies.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> A complete simulation would require infinite means to process, memorize and exhibit. Only a complete simulation of a universe with an infinite number of the smallest components would require infinite means.
- JohnLeTigre 10y ago
  Agreed, it's kind of my point, - because a complete simulation would require infinite means - simulations can only be incomplete - incomplete simulations would exhibit metaphysical irregularities - yet to this day, metaphysics seems coherent and consistent - therefore we are probably not in a simulation
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    Except the finite observable universe made of matter and energy that comes in quantized packets would not take infinite means to simulate. It would take fantastically large means, but not infinite means. Therefore, it could be a simulation. Or not. There's no way to tell the difference.
    - lucozade 10y ago
      > Therefore, it could be a simulation. Or not. There's no way to tell the difference If the Milky Way were to re-arrange itself to say Game Over, I think I'd be inclined to go for sim.

benjohnson 10y ago

>>A complete simulation would require infinite means to process, memorize and exhibit. True - but a perhaps a clever simulation could concentrate it's computing near the observers and approximate distant or non-observed events.

JohnLeTigre 10y ago
That would be clever, but you would probably still notice discontinuities between the distant and close objects. But more importantly, the laws of physics would be observably non consistent.
- benjohnson 10y ago
  Indeed! But ff you did notice discontinuities, the simulation could reverse and readjust the simulation until you don't notice.
  - JohnLeTigre 10y ago
    Anything can exist in that circumstance, feels like a reductio ad absurdum. I didn't go this far, so I'll have to think more about it. thanks for the food for thought.
- antisthenes 10y ago
  > But more importantly, the laws of physics would be observably non consistent. Isn't that what's happening during our observation of the galactic rotation curve? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve

lucozade 10y ago

By a small epsilon do you mean something like there being a lower limit to how much we could measure, say, position and momentum concurrently? Would you expect the glitches to appear as random events if you look too closely? 'Cos until you wrote this I didn't think it was likely that we were in a sim. Now you've made me question that...

JohnLeTigre 10y ago
for example, floating point numbers can only hold a specific amount of decimal points, so very small numbers would end up becomming zero, leading to tons of divisions by zero or NAN's ect. In order to avoid these glitches we need to clamp these numbers to values that are very close to zero and basically stop simulating the objects concerned until we detect that these objects move again. Although this is an example, an imperfect process would have an upper and lower limit of numerical representation, requiring patches to limit glitches. patches would be detectable in a simulation.
- lucozade 10y ago
  > patches would be detectable in a simulation As limits. We have those, or at least our accepted view of physics has both lower and upper bounds on what we can know. How are they that different from what you're suggesting?
  - JohnLeTigre 10y ago
    It's not so much about limits or bounds, they do exist. It's about limits or bounds that are incongruent with how physics normaly works in reality (patches would always do that), for lack of a better expression, I call these metaphysical inconsistencies.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> A complete simulation would require infinite means to process, memorize and exhibit. Only a complete simulation of a universe with an infinite number of the smallest components would require infinite means.

JohnLeTigre 10y ago
Agreed, it's kind of my point, - because a complete simulation would require infinite means - simulations can only be incomplete - incomplete simulations would exhibit metaphysical irregularities - yet to this day, metaphysics seems coherent and consistent - therefore we are probably not in a simulation
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  Except the finite observable universe made of matter and energy that comes in quantized packets would not take infinite means to simulate. It would take fantastically large means, but not infinite means. Therefore, it could be a simulation. Or not. There's no way to tell the difference.
  - lucozade 10y ago
    > Therefore, it could be a simulation. Or not. There's no way to tell the difference If the Milky Way were to re-arrange itself to say Game Over, I think I'd be inclined to go for sim.