zlacker

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+(OP)
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.

>>Dangit+(OP)
The idea that the universe is a simulation proceeds as follows:

(1) Person notices that computer simulations are getting increasingly powerful. Maybe we will be able to simulate something like the universe one day which will have life in it.

(2) If simulating the universe is so easy and inevitable, what are the odds that we are at the top level?

The idea in the article would refute the inductive step.

>>harpia+td
According to the current mathematical model we use to define the universe, built from Einstein’s field equations, we’re not in a simulation.

The said model is significantly misaligned with human perception regarding the start and edges of spacetime, so it’s completely valid to point out that it’s just a model (and that we might be in a simulation).

>>Dangit+(OP)
the bible talks about Angels holding the universe so maybe the Angels are the computers? unscientific fiction is really powerful

>>WhyOhW+qh
Yes.

>>WhyOhW+qh
On a Von Neumann architecture computer, but maybe a quantum computer?

>>Dangit+(OP)
If we follow your logic, then atoms or quarks could be considered computers simulating the universe.

>>WhyOhW+qh
> The idea in the article would refute the inductive step.

No it doesn't. The article describes a proof that it is impossible for a computer to simulate this physical universe with perfect accuracy; but, that's not actually a problem for Nick Bostrom's simulation argument. For the simulation argument to work, you don't need to simulate the universe with perfect accuracy – just with sufficient accuracy that your simulated people can't distinguish it from a real one. And this proof isn't about "ability to simulate a universe to the point the simulated people can't tell that it is a simulation", it is about "ability to simulate a universe with perfect accuracy". So the proof isn't actually relevant to that argument at all.