Einstein’s Parable of Quantum Insanity

Re:Einstein’s Parable of Quantum Insanity by yakult on Thursday September 10, 2015 @11:51PM (#10201925)

I'm not assuming simulation. It's more of "if the universe can pack something that can predict the outcome of an NP-complete system (that is, the universe itself) in real-time into a relatively very tiny space, then either it's cheating or P=NP."

As for the assumptions, I agree. Hence it's wild guessing.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Einstein’s Parable of Quantum Insanity by spacehome on Thursday September 10, 2015 @11:58PM (#10201948)

Then I misunderstood originally.

If you're not assuming the universe is simulated and is instead "fundamental" (whatever that means), then who are you to put limits on its processing power?'

I think you have a level-confusion here - the universe isn't packing computational machinery into itself. Remember that space-time is a part of this universe. If something is computing our universe, it has to hold the representation of space-time, too. The computation machinery isn't in here with us.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Einstein’s Parable of Quantum Insanity by yakult on Friday September 11, 2015 @01:42AM (#10202176)

If 'fundamental' stuff gets to break P=/= NP, then I don't see why we can't do it in a computer, if only by aping the design. But then P=NP and things get weird.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Einstein’s Parable of Quantum Insanity by spacehome on Friday September 11, 2015 @01:54AM (#10202203)

I'm not sure why you keep mentioning NP and P. A problem being exponential doesn't mean it can't be computed. Maybe the universe does the calculations the hard way.

[ Parent | on HN ]