Roman Suzi
1 min readApr 20, 2024

--

I missed the logic of jumping from non-local action observed to the simulation. Isn't it easier to simulate a model without non-local actions (cell automaton?). Or is the argument here some kind of saving computational power by storing two quantum states of far away particles in one "qubit"?

The same applies to the time-space "pixelization" suggested by Planck time and length, doesn't it?

We see optimization everywhere in what we call physical reality.

Talking about simulation assumes there is another reality. And those realities are maybe one in another (as both "simulationists" and many religious believers would agree).

I suspect there is also some kind of boundary, which science as we know it has not yet discovered as it is rigid enough to enter the fundamental problems of experiential consciousness.

Let's imaging it's another way around. What physicists measure and fine-tune is actually some kind of materialization of their beliefs. It may be we will not be able to ever reduce what we experience with waves and particles. Without having some higher spiritual dimensions above all that. Skeptics will collapse their "wave-functions" and will not allow others to collapse theirs on the high cost equipment they have built, naturally... Or maybe it's too late... It's harder and harder to believe in alternative scientific theories. But nobody even studied this so far. As checking this might require quite inhumane experiment closing some genius kids somewhere, feed them alternative theories and see how they observe the universe.

--

--

Responses (1)