What a bunch of nonsense. So, pseudo-scientists repeat after me: you cannot derive rules of the outer universe from the inner universe.
The only way to “prove” the hypothesis is if an admin sends a message or leaves some other way for us to discover we’re in a simulation, other than that it’s unprovable and undisprovable.
Yeah, I think the “simulation hypothesis” is a super pointless take, partly because it is so profoundly unfalsifiable. It’s no more plausible or convincing to me than “the universe exists in God’s mind” or “we are figment within a dream of a dragon”.
Propenents try to argue things like “if we can create lifelike simulations, then we’d create loads of them, therefore we’re statistically likely to be inside one”. But that’s to draw conclusions about what the “outer” universe is like from features of the simulation. If our reality is within a greater one, I don’t find more evidence for it being a “computer simulation” than for it being inside Tommy Westphall’s snow globe.
While you’re totally right IMHO, I’d argue that the inner universe indeed can prove this. Just within the rules and boundaries of the inner universe. With our given measures and abilities. Which are or might be totally different from the outside.
No, we can’t prove we’re in a simulation or outside of it. We can prove that we can’t currently create such a simulation but that doesn’t change anything.
After re-evaluation, you’re right. We can’t. We could just define the outer walls of what we can know. No matter how hard we’d think out of the box, we can’t measure the box itself.
We could create such a simulation. But being more limited beings than our creators, our creations could only be even more limited. Like an LLM. It could asses everything there is to know and calculate a theory around it. Yet it will be confined to OUR specifications and the data we let it consume.
What a bunch of nonsense. So, pseudo-scientists repeat after me: you cannot derive rules of the outer universe from the inner universe.
The only way to “prove” the hypothesis is if an admin sends a message or leaves some other way for us to discover we’re in a simulation, other than that it’s unprovable and undisprovable.
Yeah, I think the “simulation hypothesis” is a super pointless take, partly because it is so profoundly unfalsifiable. It’s no more plausible or convincing to me than “the universe exists in God’s mind” or “we are figment within a dream of a dragon”.
Propenents try to argue things like “if we can create lifelike simulations, then we’d create loads of them, therefore we’re statistically likely to be inside one”. But that’s to draw conclusions about what the “outer” universe is like from features of the simulation. If our reality is within a greater one, I don’t find more evidence for it being a “computer simulation” than for it being inside Tommy Westphall’s snow globe.
Well, unlike God this at least sounds possible, even though yeah, it’s a pointless discussion, not provable nor unprovable.
While you’re totally right IMHO, I’d argue that the inner universe indeed can prove this. Just within the rules and boundaries of the inner universe. With our given measures and abilities. Which are or might be totally different from the outside.
No, we can’t prove we’re in a simulation or outside of it. We can prove that we can’t currently create such a simulation but that doesn’t change anything.
After re-evaluation, you’re right. We can’t. We could just define the outer walls of what we can know. No matter how hard we’d think out of the box, we can’t measure the box itself. We could create such a simulation. But being more limited beings than our creators, our creations could only be even more limited. Like an LLM. It could asses everything there is to know and calculate a theory around it. Yet it will be confined to OUR specifications and the data we let it consume.