3 ms·

> 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

• 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