If it were a simulation though, the real world could have physical properties we cannot imagine here in this simulation. Time could move multi directionally, effect wouldn't always require a cause, etc etc.
I mean if there were some sort of reality that is simulating this reality, that other reality might not be bound by the same rules and physical laws of this one, so it might make a lot more sense for the universe to exist.
Sure that is possible. But it doesn't matter because we can't test it.
The issue is basically this: When we do science we want to test whether or not a proposition is true or not.
Such a proposition might be
A implies B.
However, this single proposition is not the set of possible propositions, and we have to find a way to tell which one is true.
So suppose its possible to have A implies D or B implies D or C implies D. I.E. Of potential causes of D we have A, B, or C.
If we want to go and test this we need to find only one of A, B, or C as well as finding D. If we find A and B and D then we can't tell whether or not its A or B that causes D.
The problem of science is a bit harder since we don't have an explicit set of possible theories, we just have sets of theories we haven't falsified yet, and the number of things in them is infinite.
So what we look for is A and not B, and if we find it, we rule out that theory. And if we don't find it we accept that as a small amount of evidence for the theory.
The problem of testing the simulation theory then boils down to this fundamental issue.
If we create a simulation and then find that it looks like our reality we only have B, we don't have A or not A or not B.
Another way to think of it would be to do a thought exercise.
If our reality was a simulation, would it be possible for a simulation inside of it to mimic the simulation?
If our reality was not a simulation, would it be possible for a simulation inside of it to mimic the reality?
The answer to both is obviously "yes". Since the answer to both is yes, doing a simulation and finding that it mimic's something that we see doesn't tell us anything about whether or not we are in a simulation or not
It would be more likely to be the other way around. Consider every simulation we have produced so far. The Sims, Minecraft, MMORPGs, Flow, and so on. In all of these, the basic properties of three dimensional space and linear time are they keystones, right? However, in each of these, things are possible, by coding, hacks or glitches, which clearly defy these parameters. These things are not possible in what we may consider the 'real' world.
It's the Matrix effect. If it were possible to simulate reality perfectly, it is also possible to introduce scenarios that defy the rules of the simulation. Whereas you cannot defy the rules of 'reality' in the same way. It is even possible to model n-dimensional space in computer simulations, whereas our 'middle world' perception (or possibly the 3-brane in which our universe is enveloped) forbids us from experiencing anything beyond three spacial dimensions and one time dimension.
So, given the statistical probability that our universe is a simulation, we should be able to see evidence of glitches, hacks and/or coding errors that defy the rules of the system. We have not been able to scientifically measure or record anything that contravenes the known laws of physics, therefore it may be stated with reasonable confidence that the simulation hypothesis is either untrue, or we are the first reality from which all other simulations may eventually arise.
However there are also plenty of games where we place lots of restrictions on the game, either because it presents us with the challenge we have to overcome in order to succeed, which is the point of playing a game, or because of technical limitations. For all we know, this could be the 'pong' version of actual reality! Perhaps the glitches are just things we assume are part of the physical properties of reality. Maybe forgetting to put in something to explain a beginning is one of those glitches. Maybe dark energy being necessary to balance formulas is another.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
The issue is basically this: When we do science we want to test whether or not a proposition is true or not.
Such a proposition might be
A implies B.
However, this single proposition is not the set of possible propositions, and we have to find a way to tell which one is true.
So suppose its possible to have A implies D or B implies D or C implies D. I.E. Of potential causes of D we have A, B, or C.
If we want to go and test this we need to find only one of A, B, or C as well as finding D. If we find A and B and D then we can't tell whether or not its A or B that causes D.
The problem of science is a bit harder since we don't have an explicit set of possible theories, we just have sets of theories we haven't falsified yet, and the number of things in them is infinite.
So what we look for is A and not B, and if we find it, we rule out that theory. And if we don't find it we accept that as a small amount of evidence for the theory.
The problem of testing the simulation theory then boils down to this fundamental issue.
If we create a simulation and then find that it looks like our reality we only have B, we don't have A or not A or not B.
Another way to think of it would be to do a thought exercise.
If our reality was a simulation, would it be possible for a simulation inside of it to mimic the simulation?
If our reality was not a simulation, would it be possible for a simulation inside of it to mimic the reality?
The answer to both is obviously "yes". Since the answer to both is yes, doing a simulation and finding that it mimic's something that we see doesn't tell us anything about whether or not we are in a simulation or not
no subject
no subject
It's the Matrix effect. If it were possible to simulate reality perfectly, it is also possible to introduce scenarios that defy the rules of the simulation. Whereas you cannot defy the rules of 'reality' in the same way. It is even possible to model n-dimensional space in computer simulations, whereas our 'middle world' perception (or possibly the 3-brane in which our universe is enveloped) forbids us from experiencing anything beyond three spacial dimensions and one time dimension.
So, given the statistical probability that our universe is a simulation, we should be able to see evidence of glitches, hacks and/or coding errors that defy the rules of the system. We have not been able to scientifically measure or record anything that contravenes the known laws of physics, therefore it may be stated with reasonable confidence that the simulation hypothesis is either untrue, or we are the first reality from which all other simulations may eventually arise.
no subject