4 ms·

"Planck constant" isn't the same as "Planck length". Please don't say the former when you mean the latter. In addition: no, the planck length is not at all lik

by drdeca 3y ago

"Planck constant" isn't the same as "Planck length". Please don't say the former when you mean the latter. In addition: no, the planck length is not at all likely to be a consequence of discretization for the purpose of simulation. It is a length scale implied by various other constants. Like, if you considered the "laws of physics except gravity is stronger", you would end up with a different value for the Planck length. And, why would increasing the strength of gravity in your simulation, imply necessarily changing your discritization scale? It doesn't make sense. Quantum mechanics does not fit with the idea of "well, it was hard to simulate the full thing, so we made some simplifications" with those simplifications being the reason for the parts of quantum mechanics that seem "weird". I know it is a popular idea, but it doesn't make sense. Making things quantum-mechanical makes them harder to simulate, not easier.

antonvs 3y ago
> Making things quantum-mechanical makes them harder to simulate, not easier. The universe apparently doesn’t think so. In fact there’s an argument that, in some sense, what the universe does should be one of the easiest ways to do it, otherwise the existence of the universe would be much more unlikely.
- drdeca 3y ago
  That seems to be assuming the speed prior (or perhaps memory-use prior, or some combination of the two). The Kolmogorov prior (i.e. the program length prior) doesn’t have that property.
throwuwu 3y ago
> why would increasing the strength of gravity in your simulation, imply necessarily changing your discritization scale? Changing acceleration values in physics simulations often requires you to modify the rate at which you check for overlap collisions. Could be related to the minimum distance an object can move i.e. the largest step it can take
- drdeca 3y ago
  Yes, it's true that changing the strength of stuff would change the possible values for the discretization scale that wouldn't cause problems, but, it shouldn't be that changing the strength of gravity, 100% of the time force you to change the discretization scale regardless of what it currently is.

by drdeca 3y ago

antonvs 3y ago

> Making things quantum-mechanical makes them harder to simulate, not easier. The universe apparently doesn’t think so. In fact there’s an argument that, in some sense, what the universe does should be one of the easiest ways to do it, otherwise the existence of the universe would be much more unlikely.

drdeca 3y ago
That seems to be assuming the speed prior (or perhaps memory-use prior, or some combination of the two). The Kolmogorov prior (i.e. the program length prior) doesn’t have that property.

throwuwu 3y ago

> why would increasing the strength of gravity in your simulation, imply necessarily changing your discritization scale? Changing acceleration values in physics simulations often requires you to modify the rate at which you check for overlap collisions. Could be related to the minimum distance an object can move i.e. the largest step it can take

drdeca 3y ago
Yes, it's true that changing the strength of stuff would change the possible values for the discretization scale that wouldn't cause problems, but, it shouldn't be that changing the strength of gravity, 100% of the time force you to change the discretization scale regardless of what it currently is.