4 ms·
> Sometimes I think the surest sign that we’re not living in a computer simulation is that if we were, some microbe would have learned to exploit its flaws. So
by majewsky 9y ago
> Sometimes I think the surest sign that we’re not living in a computer simulation is that if we were, some microbe would have learned to exploit its flaws.
Someone needs to tell the author about quantum mechanics. It's not an unreasonable hypothesis to explain quantum effects as numerical errors in the Matrix.
- npstr 9y agoThought the same! What if life is exploiting such a flaw - a flaw that led to the existing matter out of which our universe is built.
- outworlder 9y agoAlso the speed of light is dictated by how often the simulation "ticks".
- scottie_m 9y agoIt doesn’t make sense for quantum effects to represent errors as much as it would for them to be “shortcuts” to save on power. This would be especially true if spacetime itself turns out to be quantized rather than continuous. Either way though, the probabilistic nature of QM on its own could represent a “fudge” factor I guess? Truthfully simulation theory is uncompelling as a real theory, but very entertaining to contemplate.
- Strilanc 9y ago> It's not an unreasonable hypothesis to explain quantum effects as numerical errors in the Matrix. Have you studied quantum mechanics? Numerical errors in a simulation do not produce similar effects. For example, consider Shor's algorithm. If QM is just classical mechanics + error, why can't we use a bad physics simulation to factor numbers? Where would the work needed to do the factoring even be happening?