[messe]

If the author truly believes that this "explains" QM and special relativity, I'd like to see the him demonstrate that his model gives rise to Lorentz invariance, and the Schrödinger equation. Did the author think to speak to a single physicist or mathematician when coming up with this hypothesis?

Also:

> Explaining the mind-body problem: It's a curious fact that it seems to many of us that no matter how complete a physical explanation might be, such an explanation could never possibly account for consciousness (i.e. the "soul"). The P2P hypothesis predicts and explains this problem. Observers trapped in a P2P simulation would be convinced--just as many of us are--that there is something about their subjective point-of-view that cannot be captured in the physics of their world. And they would be right. The hardware upon which the simulation is running--the processing apparatus (viz. DVD laser apparatus/processor)--would comprise their subjective point-of-view, and be inaccessible to them within the simulation. More generally, the P2P model holds a reality like ours is comprised by two fundamentally different types of things: (A) "hardware" (i.e. consciousness/measurement appartus), and (B) "software" (i.e. physical information) interacting.

Surely that's just shifting the mind-body problem into the universe simulating us. Does the author propose that the mind body problem doesn't apply to conscious observers in the universe above us? Or that conscious observers can't exist there? Or does the problem get punted down yet another layer to the universe simulating the universe simulating us, so that it's turtle minds all the way down?

> such an explanation could never possibly account for consciousness (i.e. the "soul").

Citation needed.

[oxymoran]

You put all of that effort into compiling this lengthy comment just to come off as a condescending, smart ass critic. Constructive criticism would explain how his model can’t possibly give rise to the Lorentz invariance or Schrodinger’s equation. But you physicists clearly have it all figured out.

Good day.

[messe]

> You put all of that effort into compiling this lengthy comment just to come off as a condescending, smart ass critic

The majority of my comment is a direct quote. I wrote very little.

> Constructive criticism would explain how his model can’t possibly give rise to the Lorentz invariance or Schrodinger’s equation.

His model isn't well defined enough for me to attempt that. It's wishy-washy nonsense, that betrays a lack of understanding of the fundamentals of QM. I never said it can't, I just asked the author to show it. It may very well be the case that a more well developed and rigorously defined version of this could give rise to the Lorentz invariance or the Schrödinger equation.

> But you physicists clearly have it all figured out.

Science and mathematics doesn't have it all figured out. That's the whole point. But there are standards and rigor that need to be applied. This utter horseshit doesn't have any of that, and it's astounding that it came from someone with a PhD, and not a poorly trained ML model.

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

One solution to that is to assert that consciousness itself is the "outside" universe and what we perceive as reality is more like a communication protocol conscious entities use to interact with each other. I think this is similar to what Donald Hoffman talks about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_D._Hoffman

[Sanzig]

The straightforward solution is to simply reject dualism and accept physicalism. There is no scientific evidence pointing to the mind being anything other than an emergent property of the structure of the neurons in the brain.

It doesn't matter if that structure is made up of "real matter" or simulated matter running in a computer: the emergent result is the same. A simulation hypothesis is not needed to resolve the mind-body problem - presumably, intelligent life can evolve just as readily in a simulated universe as a real one.

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

> There is no scientific evidence pointing to the mind being anything other than an emergent property of the structure of the neurons in the brain.

The mind, no, but the mind isn't what we talk about in this context when we talk about 'consciousness'. Alpha Go has a mind, but does it have a conscious experience of being? How many neurons are required for that?

That said, I agree that a simulation hypothesis is not necessary to resolve the 'problem' and, as far as I am concerned, the problem only exists because people insist on believing that they are more special than the rest of the world around them.

[vidarh]

The problem with this is the same as that of the paper: It just gives rise to infinite regress. You've answered one question but created a new one of how consciousness works in the "outside" universe that has no better solution.