Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all
comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a single comment's thread.
We're living in a simulation, and the reason GR and QM don't mix is because we're living in a buggy simulation. ;)
Or rather, QM displays the behavior of rounding, because "there's no need to simulate past that level of precision", resulting in all the funky behaviors of quantum tunneling and the likes. This carries into GR as rounding errors.
I'm sure if I knew the science better I'd see the flaws in this hypothesis, but for now I don't even see why it would be particularly implausible. It's actually something of an elegant answer...
Quantum physics is precise, pretty, and hard to calculate. This is the exact opposite of what you'd expect from a computer simulation.
For example, the uncertainty principle is not due to the universe keeping track of less than expected and thus some of the position and momentum being lost in rounding. It's due to the universe keeping track of much, much more than expected, with an entire waveform rather than just two vectors.
In other words, it's not doing with six floating point numbers what would classically take six real numbers. It's doing with infinity real numbers what would classically take six real numbers.
I don't see what about GR even resembles rounding errors.
All it takes is a username and password
Already have an account and just want to login?
Forgot your password?