= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
falenas108 comments on Does the simulation argument even need simulations? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (102)
I'm not sure I agree with that argument. The fact that quantum mechanics exists, and there are specifically allowed states, is exactly the type of thing I'd expect from a universe driven by a computer simulation. Discrete values are much easier than continuous sets.
On the other hand, superposition and entanglement seem suboptimal.
I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that a simulation which is just a mathematical construct would probably not result in a quantized universe?
I was intending to say the opposite; that a quantized world would seem like it would take less computational power than a continuous one, therefore the fact that we live in a quantized world is evidence of being in a simulation.
That's not an unreasonable point, but I think it goes more to the issue of simulation versus non-simulation than the issue of computer-based simulation versus mathematical construct simulation.
Well, I suppose we could postulate something like a continuous version of quantum mechanics for a host universe if we'd like.