Quantized gravitational responses, the sign problem, and quantum complexity

See allHide authors and affiliations

Science Advances  27 Sep 2017:
Vol. 3, no. 9, e1701758
DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1701758

eLetters is an online forum for ongoing peer review. Submission of eLetters are open to all . Please read our guidelines before submitting your own eLetter.

Compose eLetter

Plain text

  • Plain text
    No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

  • RE: Quantized gravitational responses, the sign problem, and quantum complexity

    Many articles pointing to this paper summarize it as proof that "The Simulation Hypothesis" is false. It does not seem that this is the case here. This paper proves that the computational complexity of a "universe simulator" would be ungodly huge - but NOT infinite. We do not know the laws of physics in the universe in which ours is being simulated.

    Suppose, for example, that in the "real" universe, the speed of light is infinite and atoms are smaller than they are here by a factor of a googolplex. This would allow the simulation of our universe to be run on a computer with infinitely short clock cycles and using vastly more memory.

    Can we say that such a machine could not support the calculations for our universe? No...we cannot.

    But even with a somewhat saner computer - would our universe be any different if the simulation quietly ignored entanglement at ranges beyond (say) a light year? Probably not. Most computer simulations take similar kinds of shortcuts to save time and memory - and they can generally be engineered such that it's VERY hard to detect them.

    So while I applaud you on a clever argument - the bottom line conclusion is flawed.

    Competing Interests: None declared.

Stay Connected to Science Advances

Navigate This Article