Reality is probabilistic and none knows why, almost like someone programmed a video game.

How is that anything like a video game? What even is your reasoning here?

You get what I’m saying - just by me looking at the experiment result changes. I have to observe the reality in order to force it’s hand and render the outcome.

According to some interpretations, but none of the main ones. And it would in no way imply simulation even if it was true.

If I were to design a video game I would surely not render the entire world unless someone interacts with it - to conserve resources.

Having every possibility simulated until observed would be infinitely more resources intensive than just having a classical single state the whole time. Which is why actual video game designers don’t do this.

And now there is this: modern work suggests that the extra spatial dimension itself may emerge from quantum entanglement. Roughly: 2D quantum information → entanglement structure → emergent 3D geometry/spacetime.

No it doesn’t. I’m guessing that this is some vague misunderstood conception of the holographic principle but this is not how it works

And why is spacetime quantized? - This is pretty crazy imo.

It’s not. Spacetime is not quantized in QM

Reality is probabilistic and none knows why, almost like someone programmed a video game.

Some videos have probability, especially RPGs, but that is definitely not an inherent feature of video games.

No one knows why quantum outcome changes based on mere observation.

A measurement is an interaction, and an interaction inherently disturbs what it is interacting with. In the macroscopic world, we can avoid this through very subtle measurements that don’t disturb the system enough to matter. But Planck’s constant places an absolute limit on how subtle a disturbance can be. When we measure properties on a small enough scale, you just cannot physically interact with it in a way that is subtle enough to not noticeably disturb it.

I don’t know why people always act like this is beyond human comprehension. It’s not complicated or counterintuitive. It’s just what the physicist Dmitry Blokhintsev referred to as the “finiteness of interaction.” In classical mechanics, we tend to believe that it is always possible to have better precision in your measurement devices, and so infinite precision is conceivably possible, even if practically impossible. However, in quantum mechanics, precision is finite due to h. Infinite precision just is not possible.

You get what I’m saying - just by me looking at the experiment result changes.

You say “just by me looking” as if it’s insignificant.

Yes, on the macroscopic scale, bouncing photons off of things (looking) at something does not (typically) significantly alter its macroscopic properties. But it does alter its microscopic properties, and so on a microscopic scale, it is changing.

Hence, if you are looking at it at a microscopic scale, then bombarding it with photons is going to significantly alter what you see.

I have to observe the reality in order to force it’s hand and render the outcome. Not sure what that means or where that even came from, in regards to what you have said previously. If I were to design a video game I would surely not render the entire world unless someone interacts with it - to conserve resources.

I am not sure how you jumped from “if we try to measure something we change it” to “things aren’t rendered until you look.” That’s a big leap. I don’t know where it came from.

Also, if it were to conserve resources, then no one would bother trying to develop quantum computers, because they would compute less than classical computers. But the fact is they compute more. The mathematical structure of quantum physics is exponentially more complicated than classical physics. If I was designing an efficient video came engine, I would definitely not use quantum physics!

It just does not conserve resources but uses exponentially more resources. That’s just a mathematical fact.

And now there is this: modern work suggests that the extra spatial dimension itself may emerge from quantum entanglement. Roughly: 2D quantum information → entanglement structure → emergent 3D geometry/spacetime.

You say “modern work” but you’re really just talking about speculative papers by String Theorists building on other speculative theories. It’s really just a mathematical curiosity with no way to test it and is certainly not accepted by the broad scientific community.

I don’t know about you, but this sure as hell seems like a graphics engine.

I have never seen a graphics engine that uses 2D quantum information and entanglement to produce 3D effects. What on earth? This is another leap which I am genuinely baffled at where it even came from.

And another thing : At the deepest level, the universe may consist of quantum information and relationships. Space and time emerge from how that information is organized and changes. So… Do I understand it right? “It from bit” as they call it - is this basically like a video game source code? We are “information” floating in space?

You are trying to draw analogies between computers and reality, that reality contains information, and so does computer code, therefore reality is computer code. But the comparison can equally go the opposite direction: computers contain information because reality contains information, and therefore that only proves computers are physical, not that reality is a computer.

I see this fallacious line of reasoning all the time from proponents of the simulation hypothesis, whereby they draw comparisons between computers and physics and then want to declare that this means physical reality is a computer. But computers are parts of physical reality, constructed within it, and have to follow its own laws. And so it is only natural there would be similarities.

Again, similarities between computers and physics only proves that computers are physical. It does not prove reality is a computer.

And why is spacetime quantized? - This is pretty crazy imo.

It’s literally not. In both general relativity and quantum mechanics, it is continuous.

Quantum mechanics does not mean “everything is quantized.” Plenty of things still are continuous, including spacetime.

It is only quantized in some fringe speculative theories which are not even complete and only worked on by a tiny handful of physicists, like Loop Quantum Gravity. I don’t know where you got the idea from that spacetime is quantized. That is definitely not part of contemporary, established physics.

So you constantly need updated maps. Reminds me of celestial navigation where you always need an up-to-date almanac.

Geography and celestial maps are permanent (mostly).

The next question is, how long until a quantum measured map becomes unrecognised? Is the half life years or hours?

No, it’s saying it works better than INSS, without resorting to GNSS.

Okay, so it’s as good as an experienced navigator, that seems pretty good to me!

Experience navigators with some basic tools often ended up hundreds and hundreds of miles off course because they had no reference points. If you’re navigation system is landmarks plus a sextant then it’s not going to be very accurate.

When you’re trying to transit the ocean one nautical miles worth of accuracy isn’t bad, especially if the alternative is to use a potentially compromised GPS or a 15th century navigation tool.

GPS is actually far more accurate than that. There is deterministic jitter introduced to make civilian use cases precise to only a few meters, but military equipment has the algorithm to subtract that jitter and achieve precision measured in centimeters.

Anyway, that statement is highly misleading. They were comparing to previous inertial navigation systems, not GPS navigation.

Is that true globally? I seem to remember that some ocean areas wouldn’t have as many satellites visible as e.g. polar orbits don’t visit all of the globe.