Such exploits always remind me of the line from Stross' Accelerando about the ultimate end game for hacking: "running a timing channel attack on the computational ultrastructure of space-time itself, trying to break through to whatever's underneath"
I am fairly sure I would not want to be within the lightcone of anyone making a attempt with chance doing anything. thats sounds like a good way to trigger vacuum decay and I would rather that universe not bluescreen.
If someone were to find an exploit to run arbitrary code using the computational ultrastructure of the universe, I wouldn't be too sure if in-game restrictions could keep us safe, though!
One of my favorites, and the only Greg Egan novel I've ever written fanfiction of. It looks dated compared to his newer writing, but the central conceit is something else.
That's not a sync error: it's just a demonstration that all collapse theories are inconsistent with some other assumptions we like to make. (There are many alternatives, the most famous of which is probably Hugh Everett III's relative state model, though none of them are completely elegant.) It hasn't just been discovered: it's been known since the 60s, and developed on-and-off since.
Of course, we haven't really tested this because we haven't attempted to put humans “in a superposition”. Physicalists assume that photons are adequate substitutes for humans, in the thought experiment, but something's wrong with our intuitions, so imo we should adopt some philosophical rigour about this whole thing.
Generally 'discovery' relates to experimental results and not theory.
For example, it seems like it would be more appropriate to say that the quantized nature of light was discovered in the early 20th century when confirmed by experiment and not that it was discovered in antiquity when Epicurus or Lucretius were talking about how light was made up of the smallest possible parts moving very quickly.
Also, given the parameters of the experiment in question, it arguably would be better described as "multi-layered Bell" than "Wigner's friend."
Everett's also fares well for the Frauchiger-Renner paradox too.
Superderminism seems the odd choice to embrace here.
Also, given the Frauchiger-Renner paradox, the Occam's razor for fewest assumptions between the two would be contradictory outcomes being what needs to be embraced. Superderminism doesn't resolve Frauchiger-Renner.
Additionally, it seems really odd to me that it's at the exact point where a continuous system would be impossible to simulate (interactions with a presumably free agent) which is where things collapse to finite quantities, and yet as soon as the persistent information about such an interaction is erased it goes back to behaving continuously.
While superderminism could address the paradoxes, if superderminism existed the very behavior and quirkiness occurring seems superfluous viewed as a system design.
