|
|
|
|
|
|
by vagrantJin
1970 days ago
|
|
|
> It's not impossible that the universe is such a stack of simulations, and I'd argue it's worth looking into that, but it's not a solution to the question what the root of existence itself is. I agree with rest of your comment except the above quoted line. I'd argue its a casual display of hubris that the universe can be hypothesized as a simulation rather than perhaps acknowledging we are reaching the limits of what we can percieve. To that end, we have very little insight into many things. We still dont know whether light is a wave or particle or both or neither. I find it a leap of logic to jump from there to the universe might be a simulation which in a sense, it already is since perception is a result of our brains turning those same photons we have questions about into informtion by electro-biochemical processes. Do you not think there would be hard limits to such a fragile system? |
|
|
> its a casual display of hubris that the universe can be hypothesized as a simulation rather than perhaps acknowledging we are reaching the limits of what we can percieve
While I'm not completely sure why these two points belong together, I think it should be stressed that science already operates largely beyond the realm of human perception. Our tools, namely sensors and information processing, are exceeding our un-augmented biological capabilities by an almost comical margin.
> Do you not think there would be hard limits to such a fragile system?
Absolutely, there are always hard limits. They don't even have to exist by design. Again, not a simulation hypothesis fan, but it may well be fundamentally impossible to ever tell if we're in one, because we could never operate outside of the simulation's rules and gain any insight into anything outside of our dataset.
> I find it a leap of logic to jump from there to the universe might be a simulation which in a sense, it already is
I agree. I think where we diverge is the implication that knowledge is impossible unless everything about the universe is already perfectly known. For example, gaps in our understanding of photons do not necessarily mean that perception is a worthless concept. Likewise, I'm averse to the notion of hiding postulated supernatural concepts in corners where the light of understanding is still dim, although that's a personal decision everyone has to make for themselves.
In this context I'd consider a postulated simulation also sort-of supernatural, although it doesn't feel like it so much because the concept at least doesn't strongly imply a willful entity with a special interest in humans. But all things being equal, my feeling is that simulation hypotheses are just as superfluous as deities.