[woopwoop24]

you don't need to simulate everything in a big monolith and with all the complexity of everybody in it, that does not scale well.

You only need to simulate the perspective of you and what you can see, observe and the interactions you make right now.

Same as video games just render in a certain radius around you.

That scales well per human. Heck everybody around you might be an NPC and you will never know

[lloeki]

You can still simulate it as a whole and have it scale:

- You can simulate whatever is not observed statistically and collapse to a discrete reality only when actually observed

- You can handwave away whatever is outside the observable universe since information (and thus effects) will never reach the observer

- Heck you can even handwave whatever has been observed and over time return to statistics thanks to n-body problem, n>2; it would be somewhat incorrect but no one would be able to check that it is wrong as long as it fits within a lightcone

I think that it's actually more "perfect" than simulating every atom, in the sense that it matches quantum mechanics, foregoing the intuitive model of a fully deterministic Newtonian universe that would need to be simulated "perfectly" everywhere all at once down to Planck scale.

[breuleux]

Depending on capabilities within the simulation, that method scales unpredictably. If you can build supercomputers and run programs on them, these need to be simulated accurately at all times lest it becomes noticeable that they don't perform according to spec. Basically, the more machines you build, the larger the set of interactions that must be simulated becomes, and if your simulator's capacity is limited, then either things have to break from the perspective of the simulation, or the simulatees are effectively performing a denial of service attack on the simulator.

[woopwoop24]

interesting perspective. So all entities in one big simulation to ensure everyone has the same clock/variables/... and then just simulate around the person?