7 ms·

Maybe relativity is the aproximate, fast calculation for calculating distant world cells. Meanwhile, QM is there for detailed local-world cell calculations. Th

by c048 5y ago

Maybe relativity is the aproximate, fast calculation for calculating distant world cells. Meanwhile, QM is there for detailed local-world cell calculations. The split is there because running the entire simulation completely in QM is overkill will bring the main CPU to its knees.

gpderetta 5y ago
but even if you run our current QM (i.e. the standard model) simulation completely you would still not recover general relativity. Some sort of quantum gravity is still needed.
mjburgess 5y ago
Reality isn't a simulation because QM is non-deterministic. The non-determinism and measurement fidelity of QM also means reality is classically non-deterministic, as in chaotic systems which cannot be predicted beyond short horizons because measurement precision in initial conditions forbids it. Algorithmic/computational models of reality are therefore false ("aproximations") rather than the converse. All computations are functions from N to N -- and randomness in the QM sense isn't a function. Ie., a QM/Classical-Chaotic system is a "function" from state-space X to measurement space Y such that for some X there is no determinate Y. This isn't a function; and hence not computable.
- macguillicuddy 5y ago
  > Reality isn't a simulation because QM is non-deterministic. That doesn't necessarily follow. It's totally possible for us to observe non-determinism within a simulation. Reductio ad absurdum - the simulation could be of what we think we know, rather than actually what we observe.
  - Filligree 5y ago
    > Reductio ad absurdum - the simulation could be of what we think we know, rather than actually what we observe. Given we're talking about a universe-scale simulation, I don't think that's actually absurd. We wouldn't be able to do that, no, but we wouldn't be able to do any of this. It's obviously possible in principle. No, reductio ad absurdum: The simulation could be of you. Just you. All other people are simulated only to whatever degree is needed when they interact with you; people who don't, are only simulated as trendlines.
  - skissane 5y ago
    > It's totally possible for us to observe non-determinism within a simulation You can never really observe non-determinism. All you can say is that there is no observable determinism; you can never exclude the possibility of hidden patterns you aren’t smart enough to notice. Maybe our observations are totally deterministic but we will never be able to know because the determinism is computationally intractable, or depends on variables we cannot observe Arguments from QM, such as Bell’s theorem, are sometimes presented as disproving hidden determinism: but, at best, only disprove local determinism, and leave the possibility of non-local determinism entirely intact; and when one considers the possibility of “superdeterminism” (that the observer’s choices of what observations to make are determined by the same determinism as the system being observed) maybe don’t even do that
- vidarh 5y ago
  If we're in a simulation, you have no basis for drawing conclusions about any of our observations, whether those observations have taken place, whether anything outside of this moment exists, or anything outside your mind, or both. The notion that non-determinism can be proven, exists, and/or has a relevance to a simulation all make assumptions about reality that either won't or don't have to hold if you're in a simulation.
  - Ieghaehia9 5y ago
    > If we're in a simulation, you have no basis for drawing conclusions about any of our observations, whether those observations have taken place, whether anything outside of this moment exists, or anything outside your mind, or both. But then simulation is unfalsifiable. Whatever you observe, the simulation could have paused an arbitrary number of times, or modified you or the environment to an arbitrary degree, hence it's compatible with simulation. Which makes simulation "a difference that makes no difference".
    - macguillicuddy 5y ago
      Without wanting to speak on their behalf, I think that's exactly vidarh's point. That simulation is indeed unfalsifiable and therefore mjburgess' conjecture that it's false doesn't hold.
    - WJW 5y ago
      Simulation being unfalsifiable is indeed the main problem with the theory.
      - klyrs 5y ago
        A theory known to be unfalsifiable cannot be conclusively ruled "false." It can only be deemed outside of the realm of science. To make such a strong claim puts one back in the realm of faith in pseudoscience. I like the word "bullshit." Bullshit isn't necessarily true, isn't necessarily false, it's simply not worth my time to wade into it.
- t8sr 5y ago
  It isn’t really known whether QM is deterministic or not. In the 90s (before my time), I think the majority view was that it’s not, but more recently there are signs that all “interpretations” aren’t really equivalent after all, and some deterministic ones (Many Worlds…) have been gaining support. Sorry for brevity, am typing on a potato.
  - qazpot 5y ago
    > It isn’t really known whether QM is deterministic or not. But we do know that there are no hidden variables - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem
    - beecafe 5y ago
      Not exactly! This just applies to "local" hidden variables. See Bohmian mechanics for one which uses non-local hidden variables (i.e, not values at each spatial voxel but values per wavefunction, spread out over it) (from that description you can also imagine the problems this theory has in integrating with relativity).
    - GoblinSlayer 5y ago
      No hidden variables doesn't mean indeterminism, it only means no hidden variables.
  - mjburgess 5y ago
    The issue with the many-worlds interpretation is that it only provides for a local absence of randomness. The process of splitting into many words, as well as necessary limitations on measurement, i think both leave you in non-computable territory. You'd model this by generating an infinite number of Turing machines for each quantum event, but you'd also need to do something about the time horizon on prediction. Ie., chaotic systems aren't long-run deterministic because of measurement limitations. So there's something like many uncountable infinities of Turing machines out there. As for each digit in X there is an infinity of many-worlds in Y (the nature of chaos). I dont see this many-worlds vision giving you anything you can simulation. Rather its a useful conceptual heuristic when interpreting QM probabilities.
- rhrowawa 5y ago
  Why do you imply non-determinism when you very well no that’s not provable. I dislike people that mislead others online by deliberately writing false statements.
- taneq 5y ago
  Simulations can't have RNG?

by c048 5y ago

gpderetta 5y ago

but even if you run our current QM (i.e. the standard model) simulation completely you would still not recover general relativity. Some sort of quantum gravity is still needed.

mjburgess 5y ago

Reality isn't a simulation because QM is non-deterministic. The non-determinism and measurement fidelity of QM also means reality is classically non-deterministic, as in chaotic systems which cannot be predicted beyond short horizons because measurement precision in initial conditions forbids it. Algorithmic/computational models of reality are therefore false ("aproximations") rather than the converse. All computations are functions from N to N -- and randomness in the QM sense isn't a function. Ie., a QM/Classical-Chaotic system is a "function" from state-space X to measurement space Y such that for some X there is no determinate Y. This isn't a function; and hence not computable.

macguillicuddy 5y ago
> Reality isn't a simulation because QM is non-deterministic. That doesn't necessarily follow. It's totally possible for us to observe non-determinism within a simulation. Reductio ad absurdum - the simulation could be of what we think we know, rather than actually what we observe.
- Filligree 5y ago
  > Reductio ad absurdum - the simulation could be of what we think we know, rather than actually what we observe. Given we're talking about a universe-scale simulation, I don't think that's actually absurd. We wouldn't be able to do that, no, but we wouldn't be able to do any of this. It's obviously possible in principle. No, reductio ad absurdum: The simulation could be of you. Just you. All other people are simulated only to whatever degree is needed when they interact with you; people who don't, are only simulated as trendlines.
- skissane 5y ago
  > It's totally possible for us to observe non-determinism within a simulation You can never really observe non-determinism. All you can say is that there is no observable determinism; you can never exclude the possibility of hidden patterns you aren’t smart enough to notice. Maybe our observations are totally deterministic but we will never be able to know because the determinism is computationally intractable, or depends on variables we cannot observe Arguments from QM, such as Bell’s theorem, are sometimes presented as disproving hidden determinism: but, at best, only disprove local determinism, and leave the possibility of non-local determinism entirely intact; and when one considers the possibility of “superdeterminism” (that the observer’s choices of what observations to make are determined by the same determinism as the system being observed) maybe don’t even do that
vidarh 5y ago
If we're in a simulation, you have no basis for drawing conclusions about any of our observations, whether those observations have taken place, whether anything outside of this moment exists, or anything outside your mind, or both. The notion that non-determinism can be proven, exists, and/or has a relevance to a simulation all make assumptions about reality that either won't or don't have to hold if you're in a simulation.
- Ieghaehia9 5y ago
  > If we're in a simulation, you have no basis for drawing conclusions about any of our observations, whether those observations have taken place, whether anything outside of this moment exists, or anything outside your mind, or both. But then simulation is unfalsifiable. Whatever you observe, the simulation could have paused an arbitrary number of times, or modified you or the environment to an arbitrary degree, hence it's compatible with simulation. Which makes simulation "a difference that makes no difference".
  - macguillicuddy 5y ago
    Without wanting to speak on their behalf, I think that's exactly vidarh's point. That simulation is indeed unfalsifiable and therefore mjburgess' conjecture that it's false doesn't hold.
  - WJW 5y ago
    Simulation being unfalsifiable is indeed the main problem with the theory.
    - klyrs 5y ago
      A theory known to be unfalsifiable cannot be conclusively ruled "false." It can only be deemed outside of the realm of science. To make such a strong claim puts one back in the realm of faith in pseudoscience. I like the word "bullshit." Bullshit isn't necessarily true, isn't necessarily false, it's simply not worth my time to wade into it.
t8sr 5y ago
It isn’t really known whether QM is deterministic or not. In the 90s (before my time), I think the majority view was that it’s not, but more recently there are signs that all “interpretations” aren’t really equivalent after all, and some deterministic ones (Many Worlds…) have been gaining support. Sorry for brevity, am typing on a potato.
- qazpot 5y ago
  > It isn’t really known whether QM is deterministic or not. But we do know that there are no hidden variables - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem
  - beecafe 5y ago
    Not exactly! This just applies to "local" hidden variables. See Bohmian mechanics for one which uses non-local hidden variables (i.e, not values at each spatial voxel but values per wavefunction, spread out over it) (from that description you can also imagine the problems this theory has in integrating with relativity).
  - GoblinSlayer 5y ago
    No hidden variables doesn't mean indeterminism, it only means no hidden variables.
- mjburgess 5y ago
  The issue with the many-worlds interpretation is that it only provides for a local absence of randomness. The process of splitting into many words, as well as necessary limitations on measurement, i think both leave you in non-computable territory. You'd model this by generating an infinite number of Turing machines for each quantum event, but you'd also need to do something about the time horizon on prediction. Ie., chaotic systems aren't long-run deterministic because of measurement limitations. So there's something like many uncountable infinities of Turing machines out there. As for each digit in X there is an infinity of many-worlds in Y (the nature of chaos). I dont see this many-worlds vision giving you anything you can simulation. Rather its a useful conceptual heuristic when interpreting QM probabilities.
rhrowawa 5y ago
Why do you imply non-determinism when you very well no that’s not provable. I dislike people that mislead others online by deliberately writing false statements.
taneq 5y ago
Simulations can't have RNG?