Hacker News Reader

Comment by lmg643 | Hacker News Reader

This reminds me of an article I read a year back, same topic:

http://falkenblog.blogspot.com/2013/07/my-big-toe.html

"The bottom line is, if we are in a simulation, there needs to be compressive sampling because quantum effects between particles would otherwise require an infinite amount of memory, so the meaning of the wave function is that it's for data compression. [...] The fortuitous data compression implicit in wave functions is merely another reason to suspect we are in a simulation. "

View on HN

The Falkenberg blog just prompted me to write on the subject, because it implies that if a creator exists, they are not omnipotent.

http://www.bencollier.info/content/physics-and-demiurge-crea...

Seems like backward reasoning. It's fair to say "Hey, if the universe is a resource constrained simulation, that would explain why wave-particle duality!", but I don't see any logical requirement that "Because wave-particle duality, it must be a resource constrained simulation (if it's a simulation)".

Quite. The creator could just as easily choose such a physics for obscure aesthetic reasons, or reasons for which we have no concept at all. Furthermore, we have no way of knowing whether "resource constraints" are a meaningful concept outside our little physical universe, either.

"No one could be able to simukate our universe because we can't do it."

Other people think this way e.g. "The Earth's creation, according to Mormon scripture, was not ex nihilo, but organized from existing matter." If God did not create the earth out of nothing, but rather organized it from existing matter, it's not that much of a jump to assume that He doesn't run simulations with infinite memory either.

I'm not a physicist, but I suspect there are more convincing (physical) arguments for the discreteness of nature -- otherwise we would have non-finite (informantion/thermodinamic) entropy per unit space, which would probably lead to a handful of inconsistencies, perhaps analogous to the ultraviolet catastrophe which lead to the proposition of quanta of energy by Plank.

> lead to the proposition of quanta of energy by Maxwell.

No, not Maxwell. Max Planck. Maxwell did something very important, but the first suggestions of quanta arose in the work of Planck.

Thanks, I tend to mistake them!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com