Yes, you can. Physicists solve Schrödinger's equation numerically in classical computers all the time. It is inefficient, of course, but efficiency plays no role in Hossenfelder's argument.
To simulate probabilistic outcomes you calculate the probabilities and use a random number generator.
Sabine Hossenfelder is conflating "living in a simulation" and "spacetime is discrete". For fucks sake, she is saying that we should see evidence of discretization via violations of Lorentz symmetry. Yes, this is true, a discrete universe is not compatible with the continuity of Lorentz transforms, but this has nothing to do with their simulatability. Lorentz transforms are trivial to simulate. Heck, all of physics we know can be simulated even in a classical computer, they are just differential equations.
Just because she's wrong it doesn't mean that the simulation argument is right, however. Personally, I think the simulation argument is uninteresting, because it is unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific.
This might sound good, but is not true. I am a physicist, and I know lots of physicists. What happens is: as a student you make a lot of mistakes and get corrected all the time. As you learn stuff, you make less and less mistakes, and get corrected less and less. At the same time, you get used to knowing stuff that most people do not know. Even more, you get used to being right about stuff that most people are just mistaken about (like relativity, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics...). That has an effect on your psyche. As an active researcher, you still have the peer-review system to save your sanity: knowledgeable people criticizing your work keeps your ego in place. But after you retire, you just get prize after prize, and no scientific feedback anymore. Many physicists start believing that every brain fart they have is a genial idea, and that anyone that criticizes them doesn't know the first thing about what they are saying.
I don't think Hawking is going bananas. AI is a real risk that most people are blissfully unaware about. Hawking is just well-informed and thinking ahead.
This claim is just slander. If the claimed technology was in fact violating the second law of thermodynamics this wouldn't be a controversy, the paper would have been outright rejected and Goodenough would be hanging his head in shame.
Instead, what is apparently the problem is that there is some unaccounted-for surplus energy in the system, which must of course be explained if anyone is to take his experiment seriously.
An ad hominen is when I say your argument is false because you are an ignorant. What I said is that you are an ignorant because your argument is false. Do you understand the distinction?
I did not give any reason why I think your argument is false, not even a fallacious one. I don't think it is even interesting enough to be worth debating.
Your ignorance on basic economics matches well your ignorance about taxation policy. Maybe you should read one or two books on it before embarrassing yourself in public like this?
Obscure? I think it is blinding obvious that who pays Apple's tax (or actually doesn't pay anything) is the consumer that buys Apple's stuff. But charging tax on the level of individuals instead of corporations would be extremely complex, creating even more loopholes and opportunities for people to evade tax. Corporate tax is actually a great idea (there's a reason why almost every single country on Earth charges it), as it allows you to charge tax without imperilling the financial viability of a company, since it falls only on profits.
Oh that's a wonderful deal! So any company that produces fabulous products at prices customers are very willing to pay is now exempt of tax? Please tell that to every other company, because it looks as if only Apple is taking advantage of this New Zealand law.
You live in a fantasy world if you think it is actually possible to change the laws so that megacorps start paying tax. You are directly going against extremely powerful interests. You know, there is a reason why these loopholes are there in the first place.
That's a hollow argument, since it was Apple and other megacorps who bribed the legislators to write this loopholes into the law in the first place. Legal doesn't mean moral.
You're quite right. The CMB is pretty much peaked at microwave frequencies, and you would absolutely be able to detect doppler shifting if you travelled at relativistic speeds with respect to it. For this reason the CMB is often picked up as the preferred reference frame when such a thing is needed: in speculative theories such as Bohmian mechanics, or by the very few sci-fi authors who want to have faster-than-light travel in their stories and know that a preferred reference frame is necessary to avoid problems with causality.
You are just repeating over and over again that freedom of speech comes first. Why? Is it for you an absolute value, an end in itself? Then there is no discussion possible, and I'm just wasting my time trying to reason with you.
Re BLM: I'm not searching for it. I asked for a concrete example, it would be nice of you to provide the link.
Come on, wake up, this is not political speech! Only in the sense that the Holocaust was a political decision.
But I just looked NOI up, and it is a clear case of hate speech: they should be punished for spreading this garbage. I don't know, however, what do you mean by hateful speech by BLM members. Care to give a specific example?
You are apparently unacquainted with hate speech, if you think it is a wrong argument that serves a purpose. It is not a wrong argument because it is not even an argument, it is just preaching hatred. Just to give you a concrete example, Geert Wilders was recently convicted of hate speech because he said that Moroccans are scum. How on Earth is this an argument? What possible benefit there can be in listening to this garbage and debating it? How does it make us rationalize and check our beliefs? All it leads to is Moroccans being lynched.
"Moroccans are scum". This is legitimate speech? Seriously? Are you honestly defending that this is a political position that can be debated, that one can criticize one's leaders by saying "Moroccans are scum", that this can have any benefit to society whatsoever?
We know exactly what this kind of speech leads to, because it has happened several times before: race riots, lynching, deportations, pogroms, gulags, concentration camps, gas chambers.
They have been charged (and convicted) because what they said was hate speech. The case that I remember was Geert Wilders being convicted for saying that Moroccans are scum. This is not legitimate speech, this is just preaching hatred. I'm glad he was punished for it.
They are valid statements because the alternative is tyranny and thought police? Come on, look at the countries where this garbage is forbidden: UK, France, Germany, Sweden, Danemark. Do you honestly think that these are tyrannical states who employ a thought police?
And your conjecture that these laws are used to target political opponents is simply false. I dare you to find a single example where this law was used to silence legitimate speech in Germany.
Milo is just a troll. He will say any crap he thinks will make people angry and grab their attention. As a slashdoter you should know how to deal with trolls: ignoring them. Not inviting them to speak a Universities.
The question is not about who gets to speak, but what sort of speech is allowed. I only can't see what is the benefit to society of allowing people to openly preach that Jews should be exterminated.
Who gets to decide? The German parliament has already decided, so you could just look it up. This is not about tolerating any particular group, it is about not tolerating inciting hatred and violence against anyone.
Because it is hate speech. You are just preaching hatred against Islam, not only making the sweeping generalisation that all Islam is intolerant towards gays and women, but even saying that Islam is incapable of changing, by calling it "inherent".
You do get into a lot of trouble in Germany if you preach hatred against gays, for example. And being Muslim doesn't allow you to do it either.
"freedom of speech dying, control of the education system..." I think you are not aware of what is forbidden in Germany. Let me help you: What is forbidden is hate speech, e.g., saying that the Jews are a creepy conspiracy which is taking over the country and that they must be dealt with. Hitler enjoyed a lot the freedom of speech to spread his message of hate. Of course, after he came to power he had no problem with shutting down any voices that opposed him.
Maybe you should ask your relatives in Germany to tell you about the fall of the Weimar republic. I guess they know German history better than you.
Only the US, never having lived through fascism, is naive enough to think that freedom of speech should be absolute. The European countries, most of which either had a fascist government or were occupied by fascists, know that it is simply stupid to allow people to spread hate through the media, or to found political parties whose goal is to abolish democracy.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, you can. Physicists solve Schrödinger's equation numerically in classical computers all the time. It is inefficient, of course, but efficiency plays no role in Hossenfelder's argument.
To simulate probabilistic outcomes you calculate the probabilities and use a random number generator.
Sabine Hossenfelder is conflating "living in a simulation" and "spacetime is discrete". For fucks sake, she is saying that we should see evidence of discretization via violations of Lorentz symmetry. Yes, this is true, a discrete universe is not compatible with the continuity of Lorentz transforms, but this has nothing to do with their simulatability. Lorentz transforms are trivial to simulate. Heck, all of physics we know can be simulated even in a classical computer, they are just differential equations.
Just because she's wrong it doesn't mean that the simulation argument is right, however. Personally, I think the simulation argument is uninteresting, because it is unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific.
This might sound good, but is not true. I am a physicist, and I know lots of physicists. What happens is: as a student you make a lot of mistakes and get corrected all the time. As you learn stuff, you make less and less mistakes, and get corrected less and less. At the same time, you get used to knowing stuff that most people do not know. Even more, you get used to being right about stuff that most people are just mistaken about (like relativity, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics...). That has an effect on your psyche. As an active researcher, you still have the peer-review system to save your sanity: knowledgeable people criticizing your work keeps your ego in place. But after you retire, you just get prize after prize, and no scientific feedback anymore. Many physicists start believing that every brain fart they have is a genial idea, and that anyone that criticizes them doesn't know the first thing about what they are saying.
I don't think Hawking is going bananas. AI is a real risk that most people are blissfully unaware about. Hawking is just well-informed and thinking ahead.
This claim is just slander. If the claimed technology was in fact violating the second law of thermodynamics this wouldn't be a controversy, the paper would have been outright rejected and Goodenough would be hanging his head in shame.
Instead, what is apparently the problem is that there is some unaccounted-for surplus energy in the system, which must of course be explained if anyone is to take his experiment seriously.
This is not an ad hominen, it is just an insult.
An ad hominen is when I say your argument is false because you are an ignorant. What I said is that you are an ignorant because your argument is false. Do you understand the distinction?
I did not give any reason why I think your argument is false, not even a fallacious one. I don't think it is even interesting enough to be worth debating.
Your ignorance on basic economics matches well your ignorance about taxation policy. Maybe you should read one or two books on it before embarrassing yourself in public like this?
If you could control updates to your computer, your post would make sense. You would have
Option 1 - No updates
Option 2 - Metered connection, just small and security critical updates
Option 3 - Update at will.
But we live in a world where there is no Option 1, and nobody trusts Microsoft to actually use Option 2 as they claimed.
Obscure? I think it is blinding obvious that who pays Apple's tax (or actually doesn't pay anything) is the consumer that buys Apple's stuff. But charging tax on the level of individuals instead of corporations would be extremely complex, creating even more loopholes and opportunities for people to evade tax. Corporate tax is actually a great idea (there's a reason why almost every single country on Earth charges it), as it allows you to charge tax without imperilling the financial viability of a company, since it falls only on profits.
Oh that's a wonderful deal! So any company that produces fabulous products at prices customers are very willing to pay is now exempt of tax? Please tell that to every other company, because it looks as if only Apple is taking advantage of this New Zealand law.
You live in a fantasy world if you think it is actually possible to change the laws so that megacorps start paying tax. You are directly going against extremely powerful interests. You know, there is a reason why these loopholes are there in the first place.
That's a hollow argument, since it was Apple and other megacorps who bribed the legislators to write this loopholes into the law in the first place. Legal doesn't mean moral.
You're quite right. The CMB is pretty much peaked at microwave frequencies, and you would absolutely be able to detect doppler shifting if you travelled at relativistic speeds with respect to it. For this reason the CMB is often picked up as the preferred reference frame when such a thing is needed: in speculative theories such as Bohmian mechanics, or by the very few sci-fi authors who want to have faster-than-light travel in their stories and know that a preferred reference frame is necessary to avoid problems with causality.
You're just being ridiculous.
You are just repeating over and over again that freedom of speech comes first. Why? Is it for you an absolute value, an end in itself? Then there is no discussion possible, and I'm just wasting my time trying to reason with you.
Re BLM: I'm not searching for it. I asked for a concrete example, it would be nice of you to provide the link.
Come on, wake up, this is not political speech! Only in the sense that the Holocaust was a political decision.
But I just looked NOI up, and it is a clear case of hate speech: they should be punished for spreading this garbage. I don't know, however, what do you mean by hateful speech by BLM members. Care to give a specific example?
You are apparently unacquainted with hate speech, if you think it is a wrong argument that serves a purpose. It is not a wrong argument because it is not even an argument, it is just preaching hatred. Just to give you a concrete example, Geert Wilders was recently convicted of hate speech because he said that Moroccans are scum. How on Earth is this an argument? What possible benefit there can be in listening to this garbage and debating it? How does it make us rationalize and check our beliefs? All it leads to is Moroccans being lynched.
"Moroccans are scum". This is legitimate speech? Seriously? Are you honestly defending that this is a political position that can be debated, that one can criticize one's leaders by saying "Moroccans are scum", that this can have any benefit to society whatsoever?
We know exactly what this kind of speech leads to, because it has happened several times before: race riots, lynching, deportations, pogroms, gulags, concentration camps, gas chambers.
They have been charged (and convicted) because what they said was hate speech. The case that I remember was Geert Wilders being convicted for saying that Moroccans are scum. This is not legitimate speech, this is just preaching hatred. I'm glad he was punished for it.
This Grey Wolf crap is clearly illegal. I'm surprised by your claim that they get away with publishing it. Got any reference?
They are valid statements because the alternative is tyranny and thought police? Come on, look at the countries where this garbage is forbidden: UK, France, Germany, Sweden, Danemark. Do you honestly think that these are tyrannical states who employ a thought police?
And your conjecture that these laws are used to target political opponents is simply false. I dare you to find a single example where this law was used to silence legitimate speech in Germany.
Milo is just a troll. He will say any crap he thinks will make people angry and grab their attention. As a slashdoter you should know how to deal with trolls: ignoring them. Not inviting them to speak a Universities.
The question is not about who gets to speak, but what sort of speech is allowed. I only can't see what is the benefit to society of allowing people to openly preach that Jews should be exterminated.
Who gets to decide? The German parliament has already decided, so you could just look it up. This is not about tolerating any particular group, it is about not tolerating inciting hatred and violence against anyone.
Because it is hate speech. You are just preaching hatred against Islam, not only making the sweeping generalisation that all Islam is intolerant towards gays and women, but even saying that Islam is incapable of changing, by calling it "inherent".
You do get into a lot of trouble in Germany if you preach hatred against gays, for example. And being Muslim doesn't allow you to do it either.
"freedom of speech dying, control of the education system..." I think you are not aware of what is forbidden in Germany. Let me help you: What is forbidden is hate speech, e.g., saying that the Jews are a creepy conspiracy which is taking over the country and that they must be dealt with. Hitler enjoyed a lot the freedom of speech to spread his message of hate. Of course, after he came to power he had no problem with shutting down any voices that opposed him.
Maybe you should ask your relatives in Germany to tell you about the fall of the Weimar republic. I guess they know German history better than you.
Only the US, never having lived through fascism, is naive enough to think that freedom of speech should be absolute. The European countries, most of which either had a fascist government or were occupied by fascists, know that it is simply stupid to allow people to spread hate through the media, or to found political parties whose goal is to abolish democracy.