Epictetus comments on Is this evidence for the Simulation hypothesis? - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (11)
One problem is that the function f(x) is seldom known exactly. In physics, we usually have a differential equation that f is known to satisfy. Actually computing f is another problem entirely. Only in rare cases is the exact solution known. In general, these equations are solved numerically. For a system that evolves in time, you'll pick an increment. You take the initial data at t_0 and use it to approximate the solution at t_1, then use that to approximate the solution at t_2, and so on until you go as far out as you need. At each step you introduce an error and a big part of numerical analysis is figuring out what happens to this error when you take a large number of steps.
It's a feature of chaotic systems that this error grows exponentially. Even a floating point error in the last digit has the potential to rapidly grow and come to dominate the calculation. In the words of Edward Lorenz:
Hmm, then why is the universe so consistently arranged to be differentiable? That still requires an explanation.