This does not evade this argument. If nested simulations successively approximate, total computation decreases exponentially (or the Margolus–Levitin theorem doesn’t apply everywhere).
No, it evades the argument by showing that what you take as a refutation of simulations is entirely compatible with simulations. Many impossibility proofs prove an X where people want it to prove a Y, and the X merely superficially resembles a Y.
This does not evade this argument. If nested simulations successively simulate smaller sections, total computation decreases exponentially (or the Margolus–Levitin theorem doesn’t apply everywhere).
No, it evades the argument by showing that what you take as a refutation of simulations is entirely compatible with simulations. Many impossibility proofs prove an X where people want it to prove a Y, and the X merely superficially resembles a Y.
This does not evade this argument. If nested simulations successively tamper with observers, this does not affect total computation—total computation still decreases exponentially (or the Margolus–Levitin theorem doesn’t apply everywhere).
No, it...
This does not evade this argument. If nested simulations successively slow down, total computation[1] decreases exponentially (or the Margolus–Levitin theorem doesn’t apply everywhere).
No, it...
This does not evade this argument. Using HashLife, total computation still decreases exponentially (or the Margolus–Levitin theorem doesn’t apply everywhere).
No, it...
Reminder: you claimed:
My main issue is: the normal simulation argument requires violating the Margolus–Levitin theorem[1], as it requires that you can do an arbitrary amount of computation[2] via recursively simulating[3].
The simulation argument does not require violating the M-L theorem to the extent it is superficially relevant and resembles an impossibility proof of simulations.
No, it evades the argument by showing that what you take as a refutation of simulations is entirely compatible with simulations. Many impossibility proofs prove an X where people want it to prove a Y, and the X merely superficially resembles a Y.
No, it evades the argument by showing that what you take as a refutation of simulations is entirely compatible with simulations. Many impossibility proofs prove an X where people want it to prove a Y, and the X merely superficially resembles a Y.
No, it...
No, it...
No, it...
Reminder: you claimed:
The simulation argument does not require violating the M-L theorem to the extent it is superficially relevant and resembles an impossibility proof of simulations.