3 ms·

I think we might be, and I think it would make a lot of sense. A funny thought is whether whoever is running us as a simulation is themselves simulated and foll

I think we might be, and I think it would make a lot of sense. A funny thought is whether whoever is running us as a simulation is themselves simulated and follow the recursion "upwards". My nonscientific best argument is that it explains how we came to be and how we end. How can there be -nothing- and then there is matter, and then there are stars. Our understanding of time is linear. ¹ If we are a "sim-city ULTRA" game, then the users starts it, plays it and closes it. That all makes sense. Thinking about being a simulation I find it amusing to think it of as fractal. Whenever we discover -the- final element/particel the game creates another layer. ¹ I am aware of scientific theories explaining why there was nothing and then something. I personally do not find them satisfying. Do have the multiple doctorates to make a scientifically informed decision? Probably not. I know someone, possibly Hawkins, was irritated when people asked him "what was before" it wasn an absurd question that made no sense. I do not think it is an unreasonable question. All we do in daily life is dependent up on a linear timeline. But yes experiments on particles may show us a different world.

avidphantasm 3y ago
If we are in a simulation, then I argue that our laws of physics are necessarily less detailed than the laws of physics of our host universe. This may explain why we having difficulty reconciling quantum and classical mechanics; it may not be possible in our lower fidelity universe. I am drawn to the conclusion that a simulated universe must be of lower fidelity than host universe based on my experience simulating ecosystems within an ecohydrology model. Our model was really detailed, but still our ability to model things like soil physics is in the end limited by our inability to observe soil properties at smaller and smaller spatial scales. So the model necessarily simplifies the soil physics to the point where the model produces results that statistically match what we can observe. As a result, there are some things in the model that we can’t quite model and some things that don’t quite make sense in the model.

avidphantasm 3y ago

If we are in a simulation, then I argue that our laws of physics are necessarily less detailed than the laws of physics of our host universe. This may explain why we having difficulty reconciling quantum and classical mechanics; it may not be possible in our lower fidelity universe. I am drawn to the conclusion that a simulated universe must be of lower fidelity than host universe based on my experience simulating ecosystems within an ecohydrology model. Our model was really detailed, but still our ability to model things like soil physics is in the end limited by our inability to observe soil properties at smaller and smaller spatial scales. So the model necessarily simplifies the soil physics to the point where the model produces results that statistically match what we can observe. As a result, there are some things in the model that we can’t quite model and some things that don’t quite make sense in the model.