zlacker

>>webnrr+(OP)
Ah, no. At best they prove that we can't simulate our own universe. They don't prove ours isn't simulated or that other, higher fidelity simulations can't simulate similar ones.

>>Dangit+f9
At that point the whole idea becomes quite removed from what most people would think of when asked to consider if the universe is a simulation.

To clarify: without being able to simulate the universe from within the universe itself (i.e. needing to resort to some "outside" higher-fidelity universe), then the word "simulation" becomes meaningless.

We could just as easily refer to the whole thing (the inner "simulation" and the outer "simulation") as just being different "layers of abstraction" of the same universe, and drop the word "simulation" altogether. It would have the same ontology with less baggage.