You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

roystgnr comments on Neo-reactionaries, why are you neo-reactionary? - Less Wrong Discussion

10 Post author: Capla 17 November 2014 10:31PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (616)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: roystgnr 21 November 2014 05:19:47PM *  2 points [-]

How would we recognize "simplified" calculations? If the "next level up" laws of physics differ from ours, their idea of what is cheap or expensive to compute might also differ.

Even if the upper physics was sufficiently similar to ours to share some characteristics (e.g. the need for large computations to be parallelized and the expense of parallel communication), and our laws of physics were simplified in a way to accommodate those characteristics (e.g. with a limit to the speed of information propagation), would we recognize that simplification as such, or would we just call it another law of physics and insist that we've never seen it simplified?