3 ms·
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
by 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 agofor 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 agoIt'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.