> We may not yet have definitive evidence that we live in a simulation. But the deeper we look, the more our universe seems to behave like a computational process.
Does "simulation" unequivocally follow "computational"?
No. Lacking solid evidence, that's one for the philosophers among us.
As a sniff test: if a simulation is good enough, then from inside it you can't determine real or simulated. If not, then maybe 'glitches' could be detected, or a kind of jailbreak is possible.
But even if: why would the fundamental mechanics of our universe not look/behave like a computation? And "behaves like" != "is".
> We may not yet have definitive evidence that we live in a simulation. But the deeper we look, the more our universe seems to behave like a computational process.
Does "simulation" unequivocally follow "computational"?
No. Lacking solid evidence, that's one for the philosophers among us.
As a sniff test: if a simulation is good enough, then from inside it you can't determine real or simulated. If not, then maybe 'glitches' could be detected, or a kind of jailbreak is possible.
But even if: why would the fundamental mechanics of our universe not look/behave like a computation? And "behaves like" != "is".
This article reminds me David Chalmers' "Reality+" book, it has many similar ideas
Isn’t that the point? If our simulation didn’t look like the universe, it wouldn’t be a very good one!
Close to my thought. Our simulation of the universe looks suspiciously like a simulation.