Raiden comments on Open Thread, December 16-31, 2012 - Less Wrong

4 Post author: OpenThreadGuy 16 December 2012 06:26AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (159)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Raiden 16 December 2012 05:19:17PM *  5 points [-]
Comment author: ahh 20 December 2012 02:59:09AM 5 points [-]

I think this paper (while mathematically interesting!) is rather oversold. A positive result to their proposed experiment says one of the following is true:

A) we're simulated on a cubic grid B) we're not simulated, but True Physics has cubic structure C) (other non-obvious cause of anisotropy)

Not only is it very difficult in my mind to distinguish between A and B, think what a negative result means; one of:

A) we're simulated on a non-cubic grid B) we're simulated with a more complex discretization that deals with anisotropy C) we're not simulated, and True Physics doesn't have a cubic structure

I think the only thing a cubic anistropy can tell us about is the structure of True Physics, not whether or not that true physics is based on a simulation.

Comment author: fubarobfusco 20 December 2012 08:09:49AM 0 points [-]

... unless cubic anisotropy is more likely in a simulation than in not-a-simulation. How could we know that, though?

Comment author: Jayson_Virissimo 17 December 2012 03:33:05AM 0 points [-]

Thanks.