4 ms·
Yes, it's hard to verify simulations. Not because we don't know what the equations are, but that solving the equations with finite amounts of computing requires
by tlb 6y ago
Yes, it's hard to verify simulations. Not because we don't know what the equations are, but that solving the equations with finite amounts of computing requires a lot of clever approximations which are hard to verify except by comparing with experiments, which we can only do for the laws of physics that operate in our neighborhood of the multiverse.
The ultimate experiment would be to start simulating at the big bang with slightly different parameters and see if intelligent life evolves on one of the simulated planets after several billion years of simulated time. But we're very far from such an experiment being feasible.
- meheleventyone 6y agoThe point is that we’ve worked out the equations based on what we observe from our Universe. We don’t know and can’t demonstrate they necessarily hold for other constants or Universe configurations. Just like Newton was correct with his laws of motion for the range of values he had access too but subsequently we know they don’t work for both much smaller scales and much larger scales. And we have no way to verify that our equations do accurately model other universes even if we could argue that they do. So no amount of fidelity of simulation (and associated problems therein) necessarily demonstrate anything. We shouldn’t confuse the map for the terrain in other words.
- tlb 6y agoWe may be talking about two different things. I'm talking about a multiverse where different parts have different values for constants (like the fine structure or gravitational constant) but the equations are the same. If you're talking about a universe with structurally different equations implying different conservation laws, then indeed we can't demonstrate anything about it.
- meheleventyone 6y agoBut we don't know either way... and importantly don't (yet) have a means to know. Axioms aren't helpful in that regard.