Science

But outside of the confines of the reality we are in it could be on a universal computing device simulating all the reality rules we live by. We would never know because we can't be outside the reality we are in. Compute position of neutrino, update position, collate interaction with calculated gravity of blahblahblah. We can't actually comment on what's "outside" reality.

The point being that this kind of math is not capable of simulating a universe. If it did something else, it wouldn’t be a computer. It would be something else.

the "something else" is the thing-- saying that it's impossible for the universe to be a simulation is going ahead and claiming that there will never ever be a "something else" that could do the computation, or, have the "non-algorithmic understanding" they're talking about.

which to my mind is on an equal plane as "we don't know why X happened, therefore god exists"

edit: interestingly, speaking of "god," hermeticists believe the universe itself is a mental projection "all is mind," the principle of mentalism. from that point of view, our universe isn't a "simulation" per se, but more like a dream. or nightmare. more nightmare than dream at this point

https://www.mindbodygreen.com/articles/7-hermetic-principles

That's assuming that a Turing Machine is the most powerful possible model for computation. Which it may be, but it's an open question.

The formalized computational systems are an incomplete subset of the capabilities of an actual computation system. Their logic is that such a system would be able to simulate itself, and thus we should see simulations as good as current reality.

That's a strong supposition they are doing and even then, idk what makes them think that such a simulation won't ever exist in the history of humanity. They are challenging science fiction, so I can go crazy pills fiction with my theories too.

But these are just thought experiments, which do not proof anything. I could also have some thought experiments and tell the odds based of our current knowledge. We have no clue and then talking about likelyhoods makes no sense. It's like talking about infinity. Just thought experiments to me, not real science that proof the one or other.

Always seemed a stupid theory anyway.

If you simulate a computer doing a difficult calculation, you cannot skip the cost of the calculation. If a universe were a simulation containing another universe in a simulation, then the outer computer is processing the cost of simulating 2 universes, so it was either over-engineered for the original task, or the second universe is parasitising the processing available to the first universe. Either way, running 1 big universe is probably significantly more efficient than running a concentric series of ever more inefficient virtual universes inside virtual universes.

Tldr: if we’re in a simulation, we’re either right at the top, or we’re a dumbed down bottom tier universe inside the 20-dimensional computer of a bored hyper intelligent being beyond our ability to imagine, and we’re the equivalent to a pond slime experiment.

Why would it be unlikely for us to be an end point, though? assuming an infinite chain from all spawned universes is kinda just silliness, imho.

If this is some big deal simulation (as in not common or easy, but like one simulation per universe) it would need several rounds of testing with simpler or randomized states to ensure it even works well enough for full prod. Sure those universes probably wouldn’t be maintained indefinitely, but from the inside it would be identical. There would necessarily be several of these -per chain link-. Plus if it’s for research, why wouldn’t they try simulating “impossible” universes with different physics than their own? I mean we do it, and we are nowhere near this level of complexity.

If simulation becomes trivially easy in just some of the universes, though… Everyone who plays sandboxy games plays through several really shit runs while they figure out what they are doing, before finally getting somewhere. And then half the time those runs get abandoned as well for whatever reason (like having a killer new idea, or some event happened that can’t be recovered from). I see no reason universe simulation, should it get trivially easy, would be any different. Some game which entities set up and play out, or abandon for something better.. or maybe they are fucking around with mods and just testing stuff out so it doesn’t need to be complete in that way. (e.g. in rimworld a dev test map is tiny, and spawns with zero configurations, just random simplified spawning to test things, and you may need to spawn dozens of these to sort out issues.)

And if that’s the case, that for any reason there are far more end points than links in chains (like tassel fringe rather than chain), I see no reason to assume we would have physics that allow us to be a link rather than an end, since ends would be infinitely more common.

And where do the laws of logic come from if not from the laws of physics and the way our brains perceive and process them?

What is the main point of the thought experiment?

If we consider a possibility from all sides, then whether or not we could similate a universe that follows different physics is one of those sides. We don't have the power to do that, but we can create programs that simulate different physics. Stands to reason that not every universe may follow the same fundamental laws.

I don't agree that it's equally unlikely to be the first as the last, either, if the universes branch off. A tree has thousands of leaves and only one trunk.