3 ms·
You don't need to simulate every particle in the universe to have a convincing simulation, from the perspective of a small number of observers (or just one). H
by gojomo 12y ago
You don't need to simulate every particle in the universe to have a convincing simulation, from the perspective of a small number of observers (or just one).
How many particles are you currently observing, in sufficient detail, to be sure they are being individually modeled, rather than the subject of macro-approximations? The answer is likely 'zero', or at least a number much closer to zero than the number of particles in the rumored universe.
Also, if you are in a simulation, you can't reason about the size and computational capabilities of the physics of the simulating system. All the limits you've ever perceived may be arbitrary choices of the simulation, countless orders-of-magnitude more limited than the "host" universe.
- vidarh 12y ago"Flatland" comes to mind with respect to the latter part of what you wrote.
- outworlder 12y ago> All the limits you've ever perceived may be arbitrary choices of the simulation Such as the speed of light? That's the simulation tick rate.
- tarpherder 12y agoMore like step. There is no such thing as time. The simulation could be paused for (real) years, then continued and there would be no way for entities in the simulation to notice that. This is also why we technically don't need super fast computers for such a simulation; it would be slow to us, not to those inside. Although it's not practical to have a very slow simulation of course.