because I had the experience recently of being in a room with people in universal agreement about bostrom's simulation argument i wrote this
Conversation
Replying to
I don't think your argument attacks simulation at all.
Take the n-body problem; it's analytic solutions that fail against it, not simulations.
I have a hard time accepting any non-computability of physics when our computation devices are made out of physics. We can include it.
2
1
5
that was going to be my comment as well - n-body and fluid dynamics are very computable, they just don't have nice closed forms (or alternatively, have singularities if you choose the wrong formalisms, like newtonian dynamics)
and if the argument is that the universe is so continuous (as in, infinite precision) that it can't be simulated, then the issue is really with step 1 already ("the universe is computable")
1
mind you, bostrom loses me at "posthumans would simulate me at arbitrary precision" because a much more coarse model would suffice for most purposes
1
2
Show replies