| Let me preface this by saying that I'm not a simulation theory supporter, and my opinion is that if the universe is a simulation, it's probably NOT one of the two most commonly-supposed types: ancestor simulations and matrix-like virtual realities. > 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. |