4 ms·

Evidence of a recursion limit in the simulation?

Traubenfuchs 4y ago
The only damning evidence we need is quantum physic gotchas + uncertainty principle + matter/wave dualism which happen because the simulator does not have enough precision, performance or memory to fully simulate the reality within it operates and needs to cut corners. But maybe this simulation IS reality and reality is simply limited in its precision, performance and storage.
- mananaysiempre 4y ago
  To call the uncertainty principle a precision limitation on measurement is something of an oversimplification. Passing from the general physicist's uncertainty principle to a more restricted but still physically meaningful case, the Fourier-transform version of the uncertainty principle (requires no physics to derive and) states that the narrower and less smooth a spatial representation of something is, the wider and slower-decaying its frequency representation becomes. (Sharp and abrupt sounds have wide spectra, which is why they get mangled into the strange but recognizable bubbling in low-bitrate MP3s. The two-dimensional case of the same phenomenon is well demonstrated by the JPEG "ringing" around sharp edges, with the caveat that JPEG transforms every 16x16 block of pixels independently.) Physics comes in here only when you say that position and momentum (amplitude) distributions are Fourier transforms of each other. If a single sample or the average value is all you get, then yes, the width of the peak becomes the uncertainty of your measurement. If you can get many samples, though, then you absolutely can trace the shape of that peak. It's just that the instruments used at the dawn of quantum mechanics were not built that way. (What "particle-wave dualism" means, I think nobody really understands except maybe Bohr scholars; "dualism" was his personal German-philosophy-style all-encompassing idea that he was smitten with before he even started thinking about QM. It's a wave, period, it's just that high-frequency waves can look like particle propagation if you squint, as seen in optics and acoustics.)
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    > It's a wave, period, it's just that high-frequency waves can look like particle propagation if you squint, as seen in optics and acoustics Based on the normal definitions of particle and wave, and based on things like the double-slit experiment, I think we'd have to conclude the behavior is closer to "neither" than to "wave". If you define "wave" based on quantum behavior, then you're really just begging the question of what to call it.

The only damning evidence we need is quantum physic gotchas + uncertainty principle + matter/wave dualism which happen because the simulator does not have enough precision, performance or memory to fully simulate the reality within it operates and needs to cut corners. But maybe this simulation IS reality and reality is simply limited in its precision, performance and storage.

mananaysiempre 4y ago
To call the uncertainty principle a precision limitation on measurement is something of an oversimplification. Passing from the general physicist's uncertainty principle to a more restricted but still physically meaningful case, the Fourier-transform version of the uncertainty principle (requires no physics to derive and) states that the narrower and less smooth a spatial representation of something is, the wider and slower-decaying its frequency representation becomes. (Sharp and abrupt sounds have wide spectra, which is why they get mangled into the strange but recognizable bubbling in low-bitrate MP3s. The two-dimensional case of the same phenomenon is well demonstrated by the JPEG "ringing" around sharp edges, with the caveat that JPEG transforms every 16x16 block of pixels independently.) Physics comes in here only when you say that position and momentum (amplitude) distributions are Fourier transforms of each other. If a single sample or the average value is all you get, then yes, the width of the peak becomes the uncertainty of your measurement. If you can get many samples, though, then you absolutely can trace the shape of that peak. It's just that the instruments used at the dawn of quantum mechanics were not built that way. (What "particle-wave dualism" means, I think nobody really understands except maybe Bohr scholars; "dualism" was his personal German-philosophy-style all-encompassing idea that he was smitten with before he even started thinking about QM. It's a wave, period, it's just that high-frequency waves can look like particle propagation if you squint, as seen in optics and acoustics.)
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  > It's a wave, period, it's just that high-frequency waves can look like particle propagation if you squint, as seen in optics and acoustics Based on the normal definitions of particle and wave, and based on things like the double-slit experiment, I think we'd have to conclude the behavior is closer to "neither" than to "wave". If you define "wave" based on quantum behavior, then you're really just begging the question of what to call it.