Unless I'm thinking wrongly, the same arguments apply to them?What about the holographic universe (Talbot, Susskind, etc.) and the universe as a computer (Seth Lloyd, Vlatko Vedral)?
It's not just about making a new set of rules up altogether though, they'd have to fit 100% within the boundaries of what we currently observe. Doing that time after time would be ridiculous, if not impossible.So, why bother making rules no one will see? That is, until the programs (us) get smart enough to start looking, then you will have to create a new layer of rules for them to discover. As humans look deeper into the past (via telescopes) and closer to the Planke length (through accelerators), the current set of rules is unravelling. Now we are postulating unknowns-- dark energy, dark mass-- and there will soon be a new set of rules.
It may be a "presumably", but since it hasn't happened there's no real logic to take that statement as evidence.Berry120,
I forgot to say that presumably when the simulants are able to simulate the universe the program is shut down or is shut down when too many simulations within simulations occur.
Exactly - but any *simulation* would have to be, or would at least have to trade-off precision for quantity. Again, an effect that isn't replicated in our observable universe.And the universe is not finite.
I feel like I'm arguing an obvious point here to be fair! The only real observation that "supports" this view, weakly, is that fundamentally some things as we understand them at the moment are fundamentally random. It's a bit like me noticing that I walk, and noticing that elephants also walk, and wondering if I'm an elephant...