4 ms·

But these "hacks" are provably needed only in the reality we live in. Let's say we are in a simulation and the finite speed of light is just a hack... Then you

But these "hacks" are provably needed only in the reality we live in. Let's say we are in a simulation and the finite speed of light is just a hack... Then you are implying that, outside of the simulation, speed of light is not finite: otherwise limiting it would not be a hack, but a realistic simulation. Now, all our knowledge in physics and information theory are based on the finite speed of light. Therefore we should prove that computing power is limited even in a world where light has infinite speed (and I'm not sure it is), before deciding what a "simulation hack" is. Right now I only see a lot of "We are in a simulation, and the outside world is just like this one, but different"

atemerev 9y ago
Perhaps (and why not?) — I am not trying to answer big cosmological questions here, or even to put any evidence for or against the simulation hypothesis. I only want to figure out whether it is possible to obtain quantum mechanics (or something similar) as a limit of some computational constraints in some hypothetical environment.
- Retra 9y ago
  That's a strange inversion, though. As far as we know, computational constraints (memory-time tradeoff, entropy/information theory) are all due indirectly to fundamental physical constraints. That is, the concept of something being a 'simulation' sort of implies it is inheriting constraints from an outside reality. If you then say the outside reality is a simulation, you can't explain all of it's constraints in terms of computational artifacts, because that contradicts it being a simulation.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - atemerev 9y ago
    No, like I said, I am not interested in answering the question whether our world is a "simulation". I am interested in exploring whether the somewhat "counterintuitive" formulations of quantum mechanics can be derived from "simpler" models and constraints (and I am acutely aware that I am not the first one to be burned with such a gargantuan task).
BoiledCabbage 9y ago
> Let's say we are in a simulation and the finite speed of light is just a hack... Then you are implying that, outside of the simulation, speed of light is not finite: otherwise limiting it would not be a hack, but a realistic simulation Not necessarily. I don't think op is necessarily arguing we're in a simulation. It might simply be that we're looking at things wrong. We fundamentally believe that computation rests upon physics. What if that's backwards, what if physics rests upon computation - and computation is the most fundamental element of the universe. While it may sound absurd at first, it's no more or less absurd than "natural laws make everything go". Somewhere we have to assert there is a bottom and it is allowed to exist - and it's rules just work. We currently just set that to physics. But if it were computation instead there could be a law of computation that you can't compute and an "infinite" universe and infinite instant communication due to the multiplicative factor of communicating. And this results in a "speed of information"/light. Who knows, maybe Brooks Law about software really is a fundamental law of the universe. ;)
- atemerev 9y ago
  Thank you — this is exactly what I had in mind.

atemerev 9y ago

Perhaps (and why not?) — I am not trying to answer big cosmological questions here, or even to put any evidence for or against the simulation hypothesis. I only want to figure out whether it is possible to obtain quantum mechanics (or something similar) as a limit of some computational constraints in some hypothetical environment.

Retra 9y ago
That's a strange inversion, though. As far as we know, computational constraints (memory-time tradeoff, entropy/information theory) are all due indirectly to fundamental physical constraints. That is, the concept of something being a 'simulation' sort of implies it is inheriting constraints from an outside reality. If you then say the outside reality is a simulation, you can't explain all of it's constraints in terms of computational artifacts, because that contradicts it being a simulation.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- atemerev 9y ago
  No, like I said, I am not interested in answering the question whether our world is a "simulation". I am interested in exploring whether the somewhat "counterintuitive" formulations of quantum mechanics can be derived from "simpler" models and constraints (and I am acutely aware that I am not the first one to be burned with such a gargantuan task).

BoiledCabbage 9y ago

> Let's say we are in a simulation and the finite speed of light is just a hack... Then you are implying that, outside of the simulation, speed of light is not finite: otherwise limiting it would not be a hack, but a realistic simulation Not necessarily. I don't think op is necessarily arguing we're in a simulation. It might simply be that we're looking at things wrong. We fundamentally believe that computation rests upon physics. What if that's backwards, what if physics rests upon computation - and computation is the most fundamental element of the universe. While it may sound absurd at first, it's no more or less absurd than "natural laws make everything go". Somewhere we have to assert there is a bottom and it is allowed to exist - and it's rules just work. We currently just set that to physics. But if it were computation instead there could be a law of computation that you can't compute and an "infinite" universe and infinite instant communication due to the multiplicative factor of communicating. And this results in a "speed of information"/light. Who knows, maybe Brooks Law about software really is a fundamental law of the universe. ;)

atemerev 9y ago
Thank you — this is exactly what I had in mind.