So that doesn't disprove the simulation hypothesis as a general philosophical idea but it kicks it back up to being the same thing as theism The idea that we're being simulated on a normal computer by humans in the year 2112 or something is completely impossible
-
-
Show this thread
-
The original version of the simulation hypothesis, as a reminder, was intensely anthropocentric It was NOT just saying the universe could be software running on hardware, ie a thing inside another thing (that's an extremely basic and ancient idea)
Show this thread -
It was this rah-rah shit about Moore's Law making computers ever more powerful "We can simulate so many things right now that it's easy to imagine in a hundred years our descendants will be able to simulate ANYTHING Why wouldn't they be simulating their own history"
Show this thread -
The point of it was to imagine that God is just a bunch of ordinary humans like us who would have the same motivations for creating the simulation as we would if we had that power There is, it turns out, no reason to think this and tons of evidence against it
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I've always figured the simulation idea only makes sense is you suppose the "real" universe has different physics. That also starts to allow you to argue parts if our physics are streamlined for simulation performance.
-
Like, a particle has no defined location unless it's being observed? Come on, game developers, get it together!
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Idk surely if your just concerned with the human experience of it it's trivially easy to move the goal posts on this?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.