= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Luke_A_Somers comments on Physicists To Test If Universe Is A Computer Simulation (link) - 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 (48)
An article inked from the linked article quotes another article as saying,
"the problem with all simulations is that the laws of physics, which appear continuous, have to be superimposed onto a discrete three dimensional lattice which advances in steps of time"
This is false. It may be the assumption of this approach, but it's not so. I've worked with non-time-stepped simulations and adaptively-time-stepped simulations. I've also worked with non-lattice, non-3D simulations.
Of course the original article comes out and says it, but it bugs me that this explicit assumption ended up cast as a conclusion.
Surely one can simply manipulate the four-(or eleven)-dimensional equations directly, rather than trying to make a measurement of a continuous object with a tool that only measures discrete states?
If you do that, it's analytical physics, not simulation. Unless you're just collapsing the wavefunction when you notice large entanglements, or something.
It's the difference between plotting a countably infinite number of points and drawing a line.