> In an infinite universe, it'd be surprising if there weren't infinite simulations of universes just like ours. I disagree. Physical laws hold throughout the

> In an infinite universe, it'd be surprising if there weren't infinite simulations of universes just like ours. I disagree. Physical laws hold throughout the Universe - or, that is the consensus null hypothesis anyway. In even an infinite Universe, assuming it is infinite, there are limits to that which is possible, and it is not yet demonstrated to my satisfaction that a computer could even theoretically simulate a Universe. That's leaving aside my fundamental objection that the space of what the Universe can possibly be is infinitely vast compared to the singular assertion that it's a simulation. In other words, that this is the correct view is exceedingly unlikely simply because it has been thought of. Imagine that I generate a random complex number of arbitrary precision and ask you to guess it. It could be `0.46451453499412721134961376996+5.275644069844024487293819737719i` for example. It's my view that you have a far, far higher chance of guessing that complex number than we humans do of coming up with a simple, correct cosmology. > the prevalence of computation in the universe I also disagree that it's certain that computation or even mathematics are universal or fundamental. I suspect that these both are based in a very human outlook and perspective. Their apparent universality is an illusion deriving from our inability to see outside of our human perspective. > In other words, we have no basis for saying our universe exists, that we have physical existence, that anyone but ourselves exist, or that we exists in time While true, I'm not sure what this has to do with the simulation hypothesis. Really, given this premise, the Universe could be anything at all.