3 ms·
>infinitely informationally dense That can't possibly be true, because then there would be no point to space and time. If a single location could hold an infin
by perl4ever 5y ago
>infinitely informationally dense
That can't possibly be true, because then there would be no point to space and time. If a single location could hold an infinite amount of information, then the rest of reality would be redundant.
>hence there is an extemely firm footing on which to reject [the Matrix]
This seems to be the opposite of the conclusion that your premise implies. I'm the one that doesn't believe in matryoshka simulated universes, but infinite information density is what would make it possible, no?
If we lived in a non-discrete universe, why would computation be unable to exploit it?
- dtagames 5y agoSpace time is something that appears to you, the obsever, and only to you. There is no universal shared perception of anything or any event and therfore no common "reality" to try and suss out. It is quite likely (rather obvious, really) that what we call reality is continuous in design, infinite in abstractions, relationships, and descriptions, yet at the same time cohesive in a single entity. Those type of systems are not representable in computers.
- perl4ever 5y ago>therefore no common "reality" to try and suss out. You or I may be wrong about any specific aspect of reality, or fail to be aware of it. However, we can be sure there is such a thing. "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick) It's kind of like the concept of agnosticism.