3 ms·
> What would be the point? We do pared-down simulations of things all the time. I think the rest of the comment presumes that the only type of simulation we sh
by kiwicopple 6y ago
> What would be the point?
We do pared-down simulations of things all the time. I think the rest of the comment presumes that the only type of simulation we should conceive of is one that is an exact mapping of some external world, and that external world adheres the same laws that our "simulation" has.
Don't get me wrong - i'm not for or against the simulation argument, I just don't understand the argument that a simulation of "a" universe would consume all the energy of some "other unknown" universe. Nor do I think that the simulation would necessarily have to map 1:1 for us to be in a simulation.
- cgriswald 6y agoYou should read the papers associated with the simulation argument. There are, of course, loads of simulations you could run that don’t fit the confines of the argument. But if you don’t have a well-defined definition of simulation you can’t reasonably talk about the probably that you’re in one. Yes, you can simplify a great deal. You don’t need to simulate the moons of Jupiter before Galileo comes along. You can’t simplify an algorithm that is at its theoretically most efficient. That’s when you start running into the 1:1 problem. My argument is that the only way to avoid the 1:1 problem is to craft the simulation in such a way that it’s not an ancestor simulation as defined in the papers.