I think this paper (while mathematically interesting!) is rather oversold. A positive result to their proposed experiment says one of the following is true:
A) we’re simulated on a cubic grid
B) we’re not simulated, but True Physics has cubic structure
C) (other non-obvious cause of anisotropy)
Not only is it very difficult in my mind to distinguish between A and B, think what a negative result means; one of:
A) we’re simulated on a non-cubic grid
B) we’re simulated with a more complex discretization that deals with anisotropy
C) we’re not simulated, and True Physics doesn’t have a cubic structure
I think the only thing a cubic anistropy can tell us about is the structure of True Physics, not whether or not that true physics is based on a simulation.
Some scientists think they have a method to test the Simulation Argument.
I think this paper (while mathematically interesting!) is rather oversold. A positive result to their proposed experiment says one of the following is true:
A) we’re simulated on a cubic grid B) we’re not simulated, but True Physics has cubic structure C) (other non-obvious cause of anisotropy)
Not only is it very difficult in my mind to distinguish between A and B, think what a negative result means; one of:
A) we’re simulated on a non-cubic grid B) we’re simulated with a more complex discretization that deals with anisotropy C) we’re not simulated, and True Physics doesn’t have a cubic structure
I think the only thing a cubic anistropy can tell us about is the structure of True Physics, not whether or not that true physics is based on a simulation.
… unless cubic anisotropy is more likely in a simulation than in not-a-simulation. How could we know that, though?
Thanks.