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
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")
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
my argument is indeed that the universe is not computable given our understanding of physics
2