No Stupid Questions

You will not find comfort here, simulated entity #8929391473

1. running an EARTH System Model ( the things that climate-science uses to see if we're including all the significant-factors in representing how this planet's climate works ) eats supercomputers for years.

The machine running the Universe-simulation would need to be more-powerful than the Universe it was simulating, to phrase it poorly.

2. number of dimensions: every time you run a model/simulation, you are running a shallower system, than the system that is running that simulation, and the dimensions-of-interaction that physicalist science has allowed, are now many, with M-Theory ( the integration of 5 different String-Theory type systems. I think M-Theory may turn out to be a "nice poem", but that actual-reality may be hella complexer. That PBS Space Time physicist said that 10^500 is commonly used as a representation of all the possible Universes that String Theory allows, but that the actual number is "a lot more". I don't think it's 9 dimensions, I think it's fractal: the higher the energy, the more "dimensions" appear, .. that's an oversimplification, but it's close-enough for now ( ultra-low-energy "opens" other dimensions, not-usually accessable, too, but in a different direction/way ) ).

3. Entropy & Evolution are both Time-parity violating processes, that operate consistently for billions of years. Physicalism/materialism ignores/denies that "symmetry", that there are 2 processes violating time-parity consistently, but evidence is evidence. Evolution allows Awareness to express, and it requires a cause. Ignoring all the neg-entropy of Evolution, as Physicalists do, isn't science, it is ideology/prejudice.

Fine: they have the constitutional-right to their religion, but gaslighting about being evidence-based Science, while ignoring/denying evidence, is offensive & insulting-of-integrity & insulting-of-intelligence.

Universe is its own self.

I hold that Brian Greene hit it spot-on, when he mentioned in a book, decades ago, that if 2 Universe-branes just .. kept colliding, .. each collision being a Big Bang, then .. it'd just keep going on forever ..

That fits right.

Why would it be "tuned for life", as some say?

Bogus question: we cannot have evolved in any Universe that prohibited our kind from evolving, therefore it is undecidable/unknowABLE.

Would aware-life happening throughout a sea of worlds, in every ocean-of-phenomena/Universe that happens, in the endless stream of them, shape the endless-stream of Universes?

That may be knowable, but not to the gimmicky mixture of Scientism & ActuallyEvidenceBasedScience that our age holds-to.

4. lowest-energy-state is most-likely.

It's much more likely that one come-across actual-rocks colliding in galaxies than one come-across simulated-galaxies-with-simulated-rocks-having-simulation-colliding-in-them.

Occam's Razor, in a sense.

No matter: ideology/prejudice addictions will never permit evidence to falsify their worldview, as I've been learning, so there isn't much point in trying to reason with "believers".

Of any kind.

And that is why chiseling my Soul/Continuum from getting caught in reincarnation is the sanest possible path.

( some decades ago, accidentally earned some Continuum-memories, of other kinds of lives, didn't know what they were, discovered what they were, Catholicism nuked, I then adapted, my worldview changing, though that took a few years, to the new evidence. No modern religion fits the data. No ancient religion fits the data, though AwakeSoulism/Buddhism, in its most impersonal, comes closest. Ramana Maharshi, the Hindu, ended-up being the best expresser of Zen I've ever encountered, to the shame of all Chan & Zen Buddhism, anyways, objectivity/empiricism makes Universe surprise one, as one's "assumptions" and "conditioning" and "belief" get nuked by random evidences.

I still "want out", though: being perpetually-recycled in Universes, as Universes recycle ALL "contained energies", no exemption for continuums/Souls, through "reincarnation", .. sucks. )

_ /\ _

There aren't, and an increasing number of reasons it probably is.

It's just been such a gradual process of discovery, much of which predated the explosion of the computer age, that we have an anchoring bias preventing us from seeing it. We think "well no, the universe has always behaved this weird way, that's just a coincidence it's similar to what we're starting to do in simulating our own virtual worlds."

How different might Einstein and Bohr's argument have been around if the moon existed when no one was looking if they were discovering the implication that it might be the case in a world where nearly every virtual world with a moon has one that isn't rendered if no one is looking at it?

In antiquity it was assumed that the world was continuous because quantization of matter was an impious insult to divine design. It was a huge surprise that people took very hard when it was experimentally shown to be quantized. And then the behaviors were so odd - why was it going from continuous to discrete only when interacted with? Why did it go back the other way if you erased the information about the interaction?

Would this have been as unusual if we'd already had procedural generated virtual worlds generated with a continuous seed function but then converted to discrete units in order to track interactions by free agents determined outside the seed generation (such as players or AI agents)? Would the quantum eraser have been as puzzling through this lens when we've seen how memory optimizations would ideally discard state tracking data for objects that are no longer marked as having changed?

A lot of the weirdness we've discovered about our world makes a ton of sense through the lens of simulation theory - it's just that the language with which to interpret it this way postdated the discovery of the weirdness by nearly a century such that we've grown up accepting that weirdness as normal and inherent to 'reality.'

And just to be clear, absolutely nothing in our universe can be shown to be mathematically 'real' and everything is either confirmably mathematically 'digital' or indeterminate (like spacetime). And yet people are very committed to calling it real and disturbed at the idea of calling it a digital world.

You would likely be able to prove or disprove you're in a simulation by solving the legendary math problem of "p≠np | p=np".

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

My main argument would be that it would be incredibly unethical. And any intelligent civilization powerful enough to create a simulation like this would be more likely than not to be ethical, and if it was this unethical it is unlikely to exist for long. Those would be two potential reasons why the "infinite regress" in simulation theory is unlikely.

The Starmaker is an interesting exploration into simulation theory.