Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> To "model to infinite density", ie., to have every single test that can possibly be applied to a model come out identical to that test of the target

So, what you are saying is that if simulated with increasing accuracy towards infinity density, as some point the models and imposed structures would break down, favouring one simulation routine over another?

Like, say, a physical phenomenon behaving like a wave in some set of circumstances, but like a particle in another...?

P.S. I'm perfectly okay in here, Elon. No need to pull me out to eat grubs, unless you promise to teach me kung-fu and French the easy way.



In the sense I mean, "simulating to infinite density" is just another way of saying alchemy, or magic.

If you can program silicon into being gold, then "programming" is alchemy.

Programming is about increasing the descriptive power of a model. The better the program, the more accurate it is.

Alchemy is about making X indistiguishable-in-everyway to Y. Lead to gold.

If you can make a model indistinguishable from its target, then you are claiming that programming can turn water in to wine. Silicon into gold.

Making models more accurate, does not turn them into what they model.

A model is just a abbacus. No movement of wood (, silicon, current,...) will turn it into a brain, which is biochemical system.


Unless the thing you are modelling is itself also a model. And by virtue of the limitations of our (extended) senses, everything is a model.

What you know as "gold" is really a model of gold. What we know about gold, the colour, specific weight, etc. in no way describes the actual thing and is only a representation as can be conveyed by our senses.

Everybody agreeing about the observable nature of a thing from a particular frame of reference does not imply that frame of reference is the one that is closest to the truth.

Anyway, as much fun as it is to think about such matters, they will, almost by definition, never be falsifiable, so yes, you are of course correct, even if only from the generally most useful frame of reference we call reality.


Sounds like (metaphysical) idealism.

The difference between idealism and realism here is meta-empirical. I would say idealism is false, and in fact, nothing is a model and everything is concrete.

To call the computer program a model is to say that when I look at it, I can use it to inform myself about the world.

It's an abstract property. The actual system in question is silicon and electrical current, etc. And thus shares nothing of interest with gold.




Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: