> "requires a few approximations in order to fit the problem into your computer"
I think this is where the source "Are we living in a simulation?" comes from.
It's interesting to note that they way a model behaves in a computer, and certain measurements share some similarities (the lattice spacing). But to go from similarities to "we living in a simulation" is just a jump too far.
Lets try to keep some clear distinction between science (measurements) and philosophical conjecturing, so that we know when we are doing the former or the latter.
Yes, I'm on board. The point is that as far as we understand currently there's no "good reason" for spacetime to be discretized, save for it being run in someone else's computer.
That by no means indicates that it is in a computer. Indeed, as far as we know, spacetime is not a grid! So if the hypothesis is: computer we are alleged to live in is any way like computers we ourselves build (eg. finite memory, finite processing speed, discrete, etc.), this paper is a step towards falsifying that hypothesis, not confirming it!
I think this is where the source "Are we living in a simulation?" comes from.
It's interesting to note that they way a model behaves in a computer, and certain measurements share some similarities (the lattice spacing). But to go from similarities to "we living in a simulation" is just a jump too far.
Lets try to keep some clear distinction between science (measurements) and philosophical conjecturing, so that we know when we are doing the former or the latter.