[ExI] Bergson and Einstein are still debating the nature of time and change

[Stuart LaForge]

Quoting Spike:


> As in the days of Galileo and Darwin, theory is pointing in a  
> direction we do not wish to embrace.  We recognize that the  
> distasteful theory seems to work well, and the alternatives seem  
> clumsy and contrived.  So it is with quantum mechanics, a theory so  
> ugly it features ambiguously dead cats, infinitely many universes  
> spawned continuously, particles popping into existence and back out  
> again, all manner of logic-defying nonsense, when we can see where  
> it really points: we are all digital simulations, avatars, in a  
> digital universe.

The universe is analog and digital at the same time. Particles are  
digital, but waves are analog; both are physical. It is unlikely that  
we live in a classical computer-based simulation. There is just no way  
to adequately simulate infinity with discrete math. The idea that we  
could have conceived of and mapped the real number continuum so  
rigorously while living in a discrete pixelated simulation seems  
highly unlikely. And why so much grandeur and extravagance inherent to  
our reality? Every engineer I ever met was mostly concerned with  
trying to do more with less.

If the universe was engineered, then a panoramic simulation would be  
entirely possible. Similarly, if the universe was engineered, then  
super HD subatomic resolution would likewise be entirely possible. But  
to have both sweeping panoramas as well as super-high-resolution  
details running in parallel, in a single application? That's not  
possible, at least not with classical computers. It is because of  
rounding errors in floating point arithmetic. Here is a good article  
about it.

https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19957-01/806-3568/ncg_goldberg.html

What engineer in his right mind would program an application with both  
the Higg's boson and the Virgo supercluster on the off chance that  
some user might build both a Hubble telescope and an LHC to discover  
them?

Engineers tend to economize resources therefore the universe seems too  
extravagant to have been engineered. The infinite continuum cannot be  
simulated. At least not on a classical computer.

That being said might not EVerett's alternate universes be  
"simulations" of one another running on a quantum computer? Perhaps.

> Of course all this can happen in a sim.  Is it so philosophically  
> revolting to be an avatar in some grand software experiment in  
> self-awareness?

It's not revolting, it just violates Occam's razor. Remember that in  
calling us simulations you are assuming a simulator. That doesn't  
answer the ultimate ontological question of being, "why there is  
something rather than nothing?" It just defers it to base level of  
reality. Where does the simulator live? What are the physics of the  
base universe? etc.

Stuart LaForge