The simulation hypothesis takes something reasonable, that reality is "virtual," and runs it into absurdity.

If the universe isn't "real" in the materialist sense, that does not imply that there's a "real" universe outside of the one we perceive, nor does it imply that we're being "simulated" by other intelligences.

The path of minimal assumptions from reality not being "real" is idealism. We're not simulated, we're manifesting.

▲

EdgeCaseExist 16 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Exactly, it's paradoxical; how would you define the universe as a simulation, without being on the same substrate! The title should have focused more on the computability of the universe, as we know it.

▲

empiricus 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Sorry, I don't understand what you are saying. What do you mean by "something reasonable, that reality is virtual"? In many ways, by definition, reality is what is real not virtual. I have other questions, but this is a good start :)

▲

CuriouslyC 13 hours ago | parent [-]

When I say that reality isn't "real" (which is awkward for sure) what I'm referring to is that we have a perception of space and time which is absolute and inviolable, when it's likely space and time (as we understand them) are artifacts of our perceptual lens, and "reality" is based on something more akin to consensus than immutable laws. From this perspective you could view physics more as a communication/consistency protocol for consciousness than the raw nature of the universe.

	▲	empiricus 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Hm, from what I know about physics, time and space are actually much more absolute and inviolable than our imperfect perceptions. the laws are quite different than our intuition, but everything is water-tight and there is no room for any deviation. the smallest of deviations would mean multiple nobel prizes, so ppl are searching really hard to find any, without success. On the other hand, if we talk about our perception, the things we see around us are of course a virtual reality constructed by our brain to model the input from our sensors, but this is normal because there is no alternative. But it seems to me you are saying smth different?

▲

brap 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think the underlying assumption is that we are “real”, meaning our existence is grounded in some undisputed “reality”. So if what we perceive as the universe isn’t real, then there has to be some other real universe that is simulating it in some way.

▲

senkora 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yep, might as well go straight to the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis:

> Tegmark's MUH is the hypothesis that our external physical reality is a mathematical structure. That is, the physical universe is not merely described by mathematics, but is mathematics — specifically, a mathematical structure. Mathematical existence equals physical existence, and all structures that exist mathematically exist physically as well. Observers, including humans, are "self-aware substructures (SASs)". In any mathematical structure complex enough to contain such substructures, they "will subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physically 'real' world".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothes...