= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
shminux comments on Evidence For Simulation - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (20)
The Bell inequality says that this is not likely to happen, since pseudo-random number generators are deterministic and so can be treated as hidden variables. There is a chance that they are non-local hidden variables, but that would imply some weird things regarding the time flows in the simulation and in the simulator (for example, there cannot be a bijection between the two).
The Bell's inequality is neatly explained in MWI though with no intrinsic randomness whatsoever (just the thermodynamical randomness inside the observer).
I must have missed that post in the quantum physics sequence, feel free to link it.
here Note: all observations in MWI ends up with observer de-cohering.
It's rather easy to misunderstand Bell's theorem and overstate it's applicability. It's a bit like how relativity doesn't prevent a dot of laser projector from moving faster than light on far away enough screen.
Bell's theorem rules out local hidden variables that move around together with particles. It doesn't rule out locality in general, and doesn't rule out lack of randomness. (MWI doesn't have any objective randomness)
Something tangential. In CS, the "non-deterministic", as in "NP-complete" and "non-deterministic Turing machine", is the machine that would fork or would magically pick the transition that leads to solution, rather than machine that would choose some truly random transition from the list.