IDK why you think that TM is simpler than one that computes, say, QM. But either way, I don’t know why to favor (in terms of ascribing reality-juice) worlds that are simple TMs but not worlds that are simple physics equations. You can complain that you don’t know how to execute physics equations, but I can also complain that I don’t know how to execute state transitions. (Presumably there’s still something central and real about some things being more executable than others; I’m just saying it’s not clear what that is and how it relates to reality-juice and TMs vs physics.)
Of course, just because we can’t execute continuum models, or models of physics that require actually infinite computation, not just unlimited amounts of compute, doesn’t mean the universe can’t execute such a program.
Ok, another example is that physical laws are generally descriptive, not fully specified worlds. You can “simulate” the ideal gas law or Maxwell’s equations but you’re doing extra work beyond just what the equations say (like, you have to run “import diffeq” first, and pick a space topology, and pick EM fields) and it’s not a full world.
Yes, which is why I explicitly said that the scenario involves actual/manifest infinity of compute to actually implement the equations to actually make it a full world, and if you wanted to analogize physical laws to a computer system, I’d argue that they are analogous to the source code of a computer, or the rules/state of a Turing Machine, and I’m arguing that there is a very vast difference between us simulating Maxwell’s equations or the ideal gas law and the universe simulating whatever physical laws we turn out to actually have, and all of the difference is the universe has an actual infinity/manifest infinity of compute like FLOPs/FLOP/s and memory such that you can actually run the equations directly without relying on shortcuts to make the problem more tractable, whereas we have to rely on shortcuts that change the physics a little but get us a reasonable answer in a reasonable time.
IDK why you think that TM is simpler than one that computes, say, QM. But either way, I don’t know why to favor (in terms of ascribing reality-juice) worlds that are simple TMs but not worlds that are simple physics equations. You can complain that you don’t know how to execute physics equations, but I can also complain that I don’t know how to execute state transitions. (Presumably there’s still something central and real about some things being more executable than others; I’m just saying it’s not clear what that is and how it relates to reality-juice and TMs vs physics.)
I’m confused, in what sense don’t we know how to do this? Lattice quantum field theory simulations work fine.
For example, we couldn’t execute continuum models.
Of course, just because we can’t execute continuum models, or models of physics that require actually infinite computation, not just unlimited amounts of compute, doesn’t mean the universe can’t execute such a program.
Ok, another example is that physical laws are generally descriptive, not fully specified worlds. You can “simulate” the ideal gas law or Maxwell’s equations but you’re doing extra work beyond just what the equations say (like, you have to run “import diffeq” first, and pick a space topology, and pick EM fields) and it’s not a full world.
Yes, which is why I explicitly said that the scenario involves actual/manifest infinity of compute to actually implement the equations to actually make it a full world, and if you wanted to analogize physical laws to a computer system, I’d argue that they are analogous to the source code of a computer, or the rules/state of a Turing Machine, and I’m arguing that there is a very vast difference between us simulating Maxwell’s equations or the ideal gas law and the universe simulating whatever physical laws we turn out to actually have, and all of the difference is the universe has an actual infinity/manifest infinity of compute like FLOPs/FLOP/s and memory such that you can actually run the equations directly without relying on shortcuts to make the problem more tractable, whereas we have to rely on shortcuts that change the physics a little but get us a reasonable answer in a reasonable time.
Oh I misparsed your comment somehow, I don’t even remember how.
This distinction isnt material. The distinction I am getting at is whether our physics (simulation) is using a large K-incompressible seed or not.
QM doesn’t need a random seed!