3 ms·

The "we're living in a simulation" theory is silly and self indulgent. If it's a simulation, then a simulation of WHAT that is REAL and exists OUTSIDE of a simu

The "we're living in a simulation" theory is silly and self indulgent. If it's a simulation, then a simulation of WHAT that is REAL and exists OUTSIDE of a simulation? You still have to explain THAT. It's just as stupid and self-justifying and needlessly complex and arbitrarily made-up as any religion. That is different from "we're living in a computational medium", which doesn't claim it's simulating something else, and is the only level of existence. (i.e. Fredkin et al)

krisoft 3y ago
I’m sorry. Writing select words with all-caps and calling the idea names is not making your point more persuasive. > You still have to explain THAT. I see your point there. Sadly the universe is not obliged to be easy to understood. “If X then I have further questions, therefore not X.” Is not a logical reasoning I recognise. What I am saying is that you can’t argue that we are not in a computer because that would bring up a host of questions. > That is different from "we're living in a computational medium" which doesn't claim it's simulating something else Interesting. The way I use these they are synonymous in my mind. I don’t claim that there is something else out there which the simulation mimics. If you have some state representation and some rules to describe how the state propagates then I would describe a computer program which calculates new states based on the old one a simulator. This is the sense how I use the word when I say “we might be living in a simulation”. If this bothers you feel free to just imagine that I am saying “we might be living in a computational medium”. > and is the only level of existence Now, why exactly do you belive that? Why not 2 levels? Or 3? Why do you feel believing that there is only one level of existence is more justified than those other arbitrary numbers?

krisoft 3y ago

I’m sorry. Writing select words with all-caps and calling the idea names is not making your point more persuasive. > You still have to explain THAT. I see your point there. Sadly the universe is not obliged to be easy to understood. “If X then I have further questions, therefore not X.” Is not a logical reasoning I recognise. What I am saying is that you can’t argue that we are not in a computer because that would bring up a host of questions. > That is different from "we're living in a computational medium" which doesn't claim it's simulating something else Interesting. The way I use these they are synonymous in my mind. I don’t claim that there is something else out there which the simulation mimics. If you have some state representation and some rules to describe how the state propagates then I would describe a computer program which calculates new states based on the old one a simulator. This is the sense how I use the word when I say “we might be living in a simulation”. If this bothers you feel free to just imagine that I am saying “we might be living in a computational medium”. > and is the only level of existence Now, why exactly do you belive that? Why not 2 levels? Or 3? Why do you feel believing that there is only one level of existence is more justified than those other arbitrary numbers?