2 ms·
Absolutely, it could be that we are living in a simulation. It's just that there's no reason to believe that as yet. FWIW I think that a 'biological interpret
by earenndil 7y ago
Absolutely, it could be that we are living in a simulation. It's just that there's no reason to believe that as yet. FWIW I think that a 'biological interpreter' is rather unlikely; it's probably just emergence from atomic interactions. (It could be planted there, however.)
The problem with your argument is that it makes too many assumptions. We know nothing about the nature of the simulator, nor do we have any reason to believe that (assuming we are not in a simulator) the universe works the way it does for any particular reason. Furthermore, the isomorphism you point out between the the physical world and computers are much more easily explained if you flip the causality chain: we are humans living in this world, and we modeled computers after ourselves and our surroundings.
- Izkata 7y agoI'd like to propose two pro-simulator things that have been bouncing around my head for a while: * Plank length/time: The granularity the simulation is capable of. * Quantum entanglement: A deep copy/shallow copy bug (that is, shallow copy was accidentally used where deep copy should have been used, hence why quantum entanglement holds across large distances).