On the one hand: fuck around and find out lol

On the other: money and corporations shouldn’t be able to dictate what gets said and heard.

It’s basically steam deck minus the screen. If you are used to the steam deck it’ll be fine.

how’s an orbital datacenter going to cool itself?

It could be a good sci-fi idea though. (Wachowskis et al. 1999)

I should’ve known you weren’t genuinely asking a question… You were just baiting me.

A consistent and complete theory must meet all four criteria.

You are doing what the authors are doing, this itself is an assertion you aren’t backing up.

The above four criteria are how F_QG is defined.

No, these are four criteria the authors assertion F_QG must satisfy. For theories that don’t satisfy all four criteria, you should still be able to at least formalize them into F_QG as proposed by the authors. Yet they didn’t give a concrete example of how a theory may be so formalized.

The rest of the paper explains exactly this.

Uh, what, not? “The rest of the paper” is after they have already reached the point of claiming the Universe can’t be simulated. My objection is way before that, which is pointing out how poorly F_QG is defined.

It is easy to check on the reliability of that journal as a lay person, and in doing so doesn’t seem to raise any flags about the validity of the arguments the author is presenting.

Sure, but knowing what I know I can give this paper a bit more scrutiny than a lay person can (ha ha, look at me, I am very smart /s), and this paper doesn’t convince me in the slightest.

The central assertion of this paper:

Any viable F_QG must meet four intertwined criteria:

I’d argue is only partly justified. An argument for “Effective axiomatizability” is given, “Arithmetic expressiveness” is more or less self-evident, but the other two I’d say is given without justification.

Also the core concept of F_QG is defined in a very hand-wavy way. I’d like to see a concrete example of an existing theory formalized in the way they proposed in the paper. It’s unclear to me how mathematical derivability from the formal system correspond to how laws of physics apply. Specifically mathematical logic is a discrete process, yet the world described by physics is generally contiguous. (Yes, there are ways for this to make sense, but they didn’t provide anything for me to know how they intended for this to make sense.)

Disclaimer: not a physicist, but I am familiar with mathematical logic side of things e.g. incomplete theorem and stuff.

I have to say, terrible paper. Very light on technical details, full of assertions not backed up by arguments. I wouldn’t really take this too seriously. But this is just a letter, maybe the full paper, if they ever publish one, will have more substance? We will see.