3 ms·

While I can see why someone might think that way, the problem is this: simulating quantum mechanical systems is much, much harder than simulating classical phys

While I can see why someone might think that way, the problem is this: simulating quantum mechanical systems is much, much harder than simulating classical physics. From a simulator’s point of view, throwing in QM isn’t a simplification, it changes your simulation from basically linear scaling to a horrendous exponentially scaling nightmare. Furthermore, quantum mechanics isn’t really an “optional extra” for our universe, it’s too important, eg none of the materials or chemicals you see around you make any sense without quantum mechanics.

x0054 7y ago
Think about it this way. You take a crisp photo, blur it a bit, then sharpen it, then blur it a bit again. The first and the second image will not looks identical. The first blurred image is the simulation, then we “sharpen” it by observing it at a subatomic level, then “blur” again by calculating up from the subatomic observations. The calculations and the “reality” would not match, but only because the quantum data was generated complexity not necessarily exactly representing the original. So, if the base of the reality is designed around something on an atomic level, when you zoom in past a given level, it would stop making sense if the program was designed to continually add complexity as it is studied more and more, perhaps in the effort of discouraging people form thinking that they are in a simulation :)
- ksaj 7y ago
  > So, if the base of the reality is designed around something on an atomic level, when you zoom in past a given level, it would stop making sense if the program was designed to continually add complexity as it is studied more and more, perhaps in the effort of discouraging people form thinking that they are in a simulation :) I almost can't tell what side you're on. I think if we are in a simulation, both approaches must be used in tandem. Rather like how so many ALife concepts are now fully absorbed in AI frameworks, even though one is clearly bottom-up and the other top-down. The good stuff is in the middle somewhere.

x0054 7y ago

Think about it this way. You take a crisp photo, blur it a bit, then sharpen it, then blur it a bit again. The first and the second image will not looks identical. The first blurred image is the simulation, then we “sharpen” it by observing it at a subatomic level, then “blur” again by calculating up from the subatomic observations. The calculations and the “reality” would not match, but only because the quantum data was generated complexity not necessarily exactly representing the original. So, if the base of the reality is designed around something on an atomic level, when you zoom in past a given level, it would stop making sense if the program was designed to continually add complexity as it is studied more and more, perhaps in the effort of discouraging people form thinking that they are in a simulation :)

ksaj 7y ago
> So, if the base of the reality is designed around something on an atomic level, when you zoom in past a given level, it would stop making sense if the program was designed to continually add complexity as it is studied more and more, perhaps in the effort of discouraging people form thinking that they are in a simulation :) I almost can't tell what side you're on. I think if we are in a simulation, both approaches must be used in tandem. Rather like how so many ALife concepts are now fully absorbed in AI frameworks, even though one is clearly bottom-up and the other top-down. The good stuff is in the middle somewhere.