As far as I know the epistemological conundrum of whether or not we exist in a simulation remains unsolved, and I believe the settled thought is that we are nearly infinitely more likely to be in one than to not be in one, based to the assumption of an infinity adjacent universe, and the ontological theory that it is in fact possible to construct a simulation whose construction is transparent to it’s inhabitants.
So I wouldn’t be so quick as to write that off.
I would especially expect adherents to various religions to understand simulation as a probable foundational mechanism of their faith, considering that many religions essentially directly imply the formation of the universe as information based… but then science seems to be converging on information being the fundamental ether as well, so who knows.
By that same token, you could identify any poorly-understood corner of human perception to be evidence of simulation. Moon landing? Simulated. Quantum mechanics? Not natural, entirely simulated. My dog disappearing every week to pester my gereiatric neighbor for Beggin' Strips? He's actually being cached in a localized foveal dimension that ceases to exist when I look away from him.
Causality is convoluted and complex, the urge to ignore it has always overcome the less-curious individuals that are predisposed to hysteria and listlessness. Citing LLMs as the latest reason why we're simulated is not going to precipitate some scientific revolution in the understanding of reality. The underlying mechanics of text synthesis are easy to learn, they just don't want to learn it.
> By that same token, you could identify any poorly-understood corner of human perception to be evidence of simulation.
I don’t think that is what I was saying.
The simulation hypothesis is not based on things being unexplained, but rather by the probability of existence in a root universe or in a spawned simulated one.
This presumes a condition where life evolves and creates simulations, and those simulations then create simulations.
The idea is the probability of being in the single “real” universe versus being in one of the infinitely more numerous simulations. Basically infinity vs infinity^infinity.
It’s much more likely to be in the n=infinity^infinity set, rather than the mere infinite set. It’s purely a statistical proposition, with charitable assumptions about the possibility of creating simulations of arbitrary complexity.
If you were interpreting my religion reference, what I meant was assertions adjacent to statements like “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Which are found in many religions. In my understanding this would seem to mean that information was the foundational underpinning of all reality, physical and spiritual.
? If anything, if I were convinced that the simulation hypothesis was predictive, it would definitely not help me sleep at night. I prefer my reality tangible, thank you lol.
So I wouldn’t be so quick as to write that off.
I would especially expect adherents to various religions to understand simulation as a probable foundational mechanism of their faith, considering that many religions essentially directly imply the formation of the universe as information based… but then science seems to be converging on information being the fundamental ether as well, so who knows.