Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by javajosh 1016 days ago
Take a smaller example: weather on Earth. There are a LOT of particles, but still classically simulatable. Chaos ensures that we still cannot know all future states of the weather. This is a remarkable truth, and one should give it time to sink in.

Note that quantum modelling those effects go as O(a^N). If you want to hand-wave away exponential computational cost, then I cry foul: the details matter, and I posit that you cannot build a computer that is more powerful than the universe itself.
1 comments
iahwrites 1016 days ago
Sure, but this argument is for simulation theory... not what is described here.

What I'm suggesting is that the calculation never needs to be done, which means the complexity of it does not matter. Whether it's O(1) or O(a^N) they're both far smaller than the infinite number of potential states.

link
javajosh 1016 days ago
>the calculation never needs to be done

Well, that's your preference then. But personally I want to see the Mets play the Yankees because it's profoundly unsatisfying to believe that all possible outcomes are computable and therefore on an equal basis. I daresay that idea is so bad that if you took it seriously, it would die out with your genes/memes. (Not that that matters since you could travel to and impregnate every woman on Earth).

link
AntiMS 1015 days ago
If Iah's view is correct, after the game, there will be at some versions of you who witnessed the Mets winning, some that witnessed the Yankees winning, and some that saw the game end in a tie. (As well as some for which the game was interrupted by aliens landing on the field and some where all the players spontaneously disappeared etc.)

So, subjectively, it'd still feel as if you'd gone to the game without knowing what was going to happen and then exactly one outcome (and not all outcomes) happened. But from a more objective perspective, all outcomes are indeed on an even footing.

link