[vidarh]

I like the "headline idea" - and have been writing scifi stories based on it, and have a long list of stories in planning based on variations over this concept. E.g. things like the necessity for a "speed limit" and time dilation can fall out pretty neatly if you assume a distributed network of simulations.

But this thing is all over the place and makes a whole bunch of pretty ridiculous claims it does not support. E.g. the "problem of free will" section doesn't solve anything - all it does is present infinite regress and call it a solution (if "free will" comes from "outside", then the "problem" has not been solved, just lifted up one level in a way that if you keep giving the same answer will just keep on going without a resolution). The same applies to its purported "solution" to the mind-body problem.

Others, like the "problem of personal identity" does not need a physical explanation, and there's no reason to assume that physical reality has a bearing one way or the other on it.

But it falls apart also with respect to it's explanation of the basics. E.g. there's absolutely no physical reason why recording or simulation of physical data needs to be limited, and using it as an explanation is a weakness. It makes presumptions about the nature of such a simulation that we can't make. Now, there are efficiency reasons why one might conceivably do things this way, and to me a lot of the appeal of writing sci-fi about this subject is that I get to speculate a lot about how I'd try to implement such a simulation.

But as written this isn't even good scifi.