Post ASyVlKqIOtIB2Zz00u by rythur@mastodon.social
(DIR) More posts by rythur@mastodon.social
(DIR) Post #ASy0VboESC9MRw2Sp6 by pseudoriemann@pl.dira.cc
2023-02-22T13:33:46.442250Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
John Bell when |P(a, b) - P(a, b') | + | P(a', b') + P(a', b) | > 2
(DIR) Post #ASy0VcmUq8M7SqEaky by wistahe@im-in.space
2023-02-22T14:07:40Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@pseudoriemann Prior physicists: "There's no way to determine if the outcomes are set ahead of time or not"Bell: Detectors... but there's three of them!
(DIR) Post #ASy0VdZlsvlrvfHwYq by pseudoriemann@pl.dira.cc
2023-02-22T15:27:12.574170Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@wistahe I think in this version of the experiments there are only two, but they each have two settings (a, a', b, b'). If the theory were local then results at one detector can not be correlated with the setting of the other one, but QM doesn't care about that
(DIR) Post #ASy0VeAHhAyhkuN6TQ by wistahe@im-in.space
2023-02-23T09:24:56Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@pseudoriemann That makes sense, different way of showing that you get different probabilities when the particle "knows" its result ahead of time.
(DIR) Post #ASy0VegBmYUzLrIaCe by wolf480pl@mstdn.io
2023-02-23T09:29:49Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@wistahe @pseudoriemann I think the obsession with locality is silly.Considering how often programmers use global variables, and how important optimizations are for this scale of simulation, surely those who implemented our universe used at least one global variable
(DIR) Post #ASy2pvqlqqvSJ02q4e by wistahe@im-in.space
2023-02-23T09:55:57Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@wolf480pl @pseudoriemann I mean, position isn't always defined and is instead described by a wavefunction which assigns to it a complex number that, when squared, gives the probability of finding the particle there. There is, however, a conservation of probability where for any region the change in the probability of finding a particle in it requires the same amount of probability to pass in/out of the region. Then observations mess everything up by saying where a particle is exactly. So I kind of think of it less like global variables and more like you have a wavefunction that distributes through a space (position space, momentum space, other configuration spaces), becomes correlated with other wavefunctions, and is restricted to some part of that space by random weighted sampling through observation where the randomness appears to be true rather than an artifact of a predetermined value (it's only affected by the wavefunction and truly probablistic). What that means physically, I can't say.
(DIR) Post #ASyUFdRza5FHX0w48m by pseudoriemann@pl.dira.cc
2023-02-23T09:41:53.335038Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@wolf480pl @wistahe Not sure how serious you are, but I think the universe would look very different if it were simulated
(DIR) Post #ASyUFeH2WI4w5Kophw by pseudoriemann@pl.dira.cc
2023-02-23T10:00:29.190736Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@wolf480pl @wistahe We can't even simulate single atoms properly because the complexity density is so extremely high. If the universe is simulated then eitherA) the computer calculates everything in full detail: in that case the universe above us must be so vastly different from ours just to fit it in that it's meaningless to reason about since none of our logic applies. Also if it's indistinguishable then there is no difference between reality and simulation anyway, nothing is added by saying it is simulated.B) The laws of physics are approximated: These approximations would have been apparent. Nothing in the world hints towards performance savings, and we have not observed glitches. Experiments suggest the world is fully detailed and complex at every scale.C) Our consciousnesses and sensory inputs are simulated and not the entire universe: This is the only one I could believe to be feasibly realized, because you would modify the brains directly to not notice the approximations and glitches. But I exclude this possibility by axiom - if I can't be sure that I am in charge of my own ability to reason about the world then I would never get anywhere and thinking about the world, including whether or not it's simulated, is pointless.
(DIR) Post #ASyUFekojZtjZgkc7c by rythur@mastodon.social
2023-02-23T14:46:51Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@pseudoriemann @wistahe @wolf480pl This seems, while interesting, to avoid Hawking's reasoning that simple rules, which are easily computable, lead to realities that are non-computable, or at least we think. Remember, Godel. Not everything can be mathematically described without holes. I currently believe fractal structures are the key to understanding so much more than we do now. They represent this class of complexity from simplicity. Still, I don't feel real.
(DIR) Post #ASyUFfBl7PRsvFM87E by wolf480pl@mstdn.io
2023-02-23T15:03:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@rythur @pseudoriemann @wistahe Hmm... do you feel protected then?
(DIR) Post #ASyVlKqIOtIB2Zz00u by rythur@mastodon.social
2023-02-23T15:12:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@wolf480pl @pseudoriemann @wistahe Haha. I feel about as protected as I can make me, no more no less.
(DIR) Post #ASyWEzOYhoo5D69Jb6 by wolf480pl@mstdn.io
2023-02-23T15:25:20Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@rythur @pseudoriemann @wistahe ok but is that 16-bit protected or 32-bit protected?
(DIR) Post #ASyYKAeQU3J5TaAZl2 by rythur@mastodon.social
2023-02-23T15:38:54Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@wolf480pl @pseudoriemann @wistahe Lets go with Sega on this one 😂