> What's amazing to me is that this question of a simulated reality would not have even been possible to comprehend 150 years ago. I love this, but I would rat

> What's amazing to me is that this question of a simulated reality would not have even been possible to comprehend 150 years ago. I love this, but I would rather phrase it that it would have been much more expensive to communicate the ideas as efficiently back in the day. This both captures the essence of what you're saying (which is something I totally agree with and was just thinking of yesterday when thinking of the idiom "shave the yak"), as well as speaks to some of the critics of your statement that say you're not giving enough props to philosophers of old. Btw, I don't want to be pushy or start a flame war, but actually reading the Bible and thinking in exactly this mindset of "what if I were a hyperdimensional population planting seeds for training 'simulacra'/AI characters" is incredible. I was never religious before a couple years ago, and let me tell you, the logic in the actual Bible (not the dogmatic interpretations still memetically floating around today) is awesome. I'll give one example, and again I ask forbearance and patience of anyone who get their hackles raised: God's name. When he's speaking to Moses, Moses says "Who should I tell them is giving me this message to lead them out of Egypt?" God replies "I am who I am" (which is also a multi-layered phrase "I am what I am", and "I will be who/what I will be"). Yahweh ("LORD") is actually "I am". So this is the fundamental, recursively self-defining "Name" of God. When reading it, it just seems weird and out of place. But when reading it in context of today's understandings of the magnitude of the size of the "Universe" (vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big) combined with the prospects of computation and "What if I were to program a universe that is designed to itself program universes?" (and many other reasons), I've done a 180. The hard part is 1) Getting over existing, dogmatic interpretations and all of the negative connotations associated with them. and 2) Actually believing it. The interesting thing is, the actual Bible repeatedly talks about the practitioners of the religions not understanding and not getting it. It's a theme both in the Old and New Testaments (It's why the Jews crucified Jesus, after all).