News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on How Bell’s Theorem proved ‘spooky action at a distance’ is real. Parent comment

Re:How Bell’s Theorem proved ‘spooky action at a distance’ i... by dvt on Tuesday July 20, 2021 @12:07PM (#27895544)
If we were in a simulation, it feels overzealous to make the assumption that the computing model would be anything at all like what've developed. Best assumptions you can make is that it follows some kind of consistent logic (though there's caveats here, too).
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:How Bell’s Theorem proved ‘spooky action at a distance’ i... by ericb on Tuesday July 20, 2021 @12:14PM (#27895661)
> that the computing model would be anything at all like what've developed

Perhaps. I suspect, though, that it would be subject to the same information theoretical constraints which would provide convergent evolutionary pressures.

It seems at least likely that some level of optimization would be useful if there is any type of cost (energy, materials, resources, space) to the computing substrate, whatever that may be, and that would lead to similar optimizations to what we might be able to imagine.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:How Bell’s Theorem proved ‘spooky action at a distance’ i... by tick_tock_tick on Tuesday July 20, 2021 @03:24PM (#27898056)
The speed of light is the exact kinda of constant a programmer would add to a system to solve problems.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:How Bell’s Theorem proved ‘spooky action at a distance’ i... by eigenket on Tuesday July 20, 2021 @04:56PM (#27899209)
But quantum mechanics is exactly the opposite of what a programmer would add. At least as far as we understand it is (exponentially) harder to simulate quantum systems than classical ones.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:How Bell’s Theorem proved ‘spooky action at a distance’ i... by lazide on Tuesday July 20, 2021 @05:32PM (#27899648)
Sure, using systems built from inside the system. In said theoretical world, they may have different constraints and physics after all. (Only kinda serious)

Practically, the simulator theory may be testable, but probably not. Every religion I’ve run across is pretty clearly not okay to even test.

So that’s progress maybe?

[ Parent | on HN ]