3 ms·
Thanks for your long-form reply. Super informative and entertaining. For #1, wasn't speaking of the 'universe as simulation' hypothesis specifically, I think
by h0l0cube 6y ago
Thanks for your long-form reply. Super informative and entertaining.
For #1, wasn't speaking of the 'universe as simulation' hypothesis specifically, I think an assertion either way is indefensible. It was more about unpacking semantics, i.e., what is the most reductive form of a computation? Does there need to even be an operator that seeks to know an answer? Is computation something that only exists in human context, or can it simply be the unfolding consequences of the 'seed' of the universe? Just rumination on abstract inconsequential ideas :)
#2. I'm familiar with some of the nomenclature is regards to 'computing' complexity, and my question, in retrospect, seems a little silly. Computation is computation. I still only have a lay understanding -- as much as I need to know for perf and the differences between algorithms -- and I'll have a look at that paper and hopefully understand the subject a little deeper.
Thanks again.
- krastanov 6y agoI think most of my colleagues that care about such distinctions would say that in the most reductive form one does not need an operator or a goal for the computation. This is the typical assumption I would have when discussing this formalization of the laws of physics. By the way, if you are fan of SciFi, Greg Egan has very fun stories that play with these ideas (nothing rigorous or seriously scientific, but certainly fun).