= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
JoshuaZ comments on Open thread, July 29-August 4, 2013 - 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 (381)
No matter what there aren't going to be any infinitely descending chains unless our understanding of the laws of physics is drastically wrong. You can't simulate n+1 bits with n qubits. So, even if you assume a quantum simulation for a purely classical setting, you still have strict limits.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Can you expand?
Imagine that some Clarktech version of ourselves dedicates an entire galaxy to simulating the Milky Way. Would we have noticed by now?
Neither does the simulation need to be perfect: it only needs to be perfect wherever we actually look. This makes for a much more complex program, but might save on computing costs.
Anyway, yeah, you probably won't get an infinite chain, but you'll get a very long one, which leads to my second point:
A "singleton chance simulation" just means that someone randomly decided to simulate our universe in particular. This is rather unlikely.
A "dynamic equilibria of nested simulation" just means that Universe A simulates Universe B simulates Universe C which simulates Universe A, creating a descending chain that is not as dense as an immediate recursion, A->A->A.
Both these cases will contribute less possible universes than a (near-)infinite descending chain, so by eliminating the descending chain you've greatly decreased the probability of being in a simulation.