61–70 of 203 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not if compression is involved.
This is why I have a totally unhinged belief that it might be possible to emulate the universe inside the universe itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’d need something bigger than the universe to represent everything in the universe.
Well, Quine is a thing.
> It is not a phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon. It’s more palatable when we consider not the observation, but the information that was collapsed out of the superimposed states at the time of the observation. The universe uses lazy evaluation, and things only happen when they have effects on other things, and what we see as past depends on what we observe now, as both need to be consistent with each other…
which experiment proves the universe uses lazy evaluation? this seems like interpretation
> It is not a phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon. It’s more palatable when we consider not the observation, but the information that was collapsed out of the superimposed states at the time of the observation. The universe uses lazy evaluation, and things only happen when they have effects on other things, and what we see as past depends on what we observe now, as both need to be consistent with each other…
which experiment proves the universe uses lazy evaluation? this seems like interpretation
"Wheeler pointed out that when these assumptions are applied to a device of interstellar dimensions, a last-minute decision made on Earth on how to observe a photon could alter a situation established millions or even billions of years earlier."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed-choice_quantum_eraser
That's not to say that this is "proof" but I think this is where the notion is most directly apprehended.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, Quine is a thing.
Right, but isn't it a problem that a quine also requires the information contained in the language's compiler/interpreter to be fully meaningful? This would be "outside the universe" so to speak.
An assembly quine is an odd thing to even ponder.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not if compression is involved.
This is why I have a totally unhinged belief that it might be possible to emulate the universe inside the universe itself.
> It is not a phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon. It’s more palatable when we consider not the observation, but the information that was collapsed out of the superimposed states at the time of the observation. The universe uses lazy evaluation, and things only happen when they have effects on other things, and what we see as past depends on what we observe now, as both need to be consistent with each other…
which experiment proves the universe uses lazy evaluation? this seems like interpretation
There is no "remote synchronization" mechanism between observers. All observations are independent, and when an observation is made, the other outcomes are not discarded, they continue "running in parallel" until another observer comes along. That is to say, from the perspective of other observers, you and your measures are also an observation they have to make (and thereby collapse).
Having every ‘observer’ also ‘participate’ seems to just make it even more intractably complex? Since presumably ‘participators’ can influence each other simultaneously. So I just don’t see how any of these theories are attractive prospects, the infinite regress seems even more severe than superdeterminism theories. It’s quite a shame this man got stuck on something that may be literally impossible to prove.
It also seems a little narcissistic to assume that humans are the only 'observers' or 'participants' who are determinative.
> It is not a phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon. It’s more palatable when we consider not the observation, but the information that was collapsed out of the superimposed states at the time of the observation. The universe uses lazy evaluation, and things only happen when they have effects on other things, and what we see as past depends on what we observe now, as both need to be consistent with each other…
- The observer effect, quantum entanglement and wavefunction collapse --> lazy evaluation
- Speed of light --> speed of causality to resolve the object interaction problem O(n^2)
- Quanta of energy, Planck's length --> discretization of reality to limit computational precision
- Unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics --> reality is implemented with mathematics
- Parsimonious physics --> simple physical rules are less computationally expensive to evaluate
- Entropy --> stability of the simulation and a guaranteed "wind down"