
We Are Not Living in a Simulation. Probably - Mauricio_
https://www.fastcompany.com/40537955/we-are-not-living-in-a-simulation-probably
======
blacksqr
The authors talk about the possibility of replicating the universe rather than
simulating it. They conclude that it is not possible to replicate, but I don't
think that conclusion has much value. If it were possible to replicate
digitally the universe with resources less than those of the entire universe,
that would suggest that it is possible for the actual universe to exist in a
simpler form. Occam's razor would then suggest that the real universe would
simply take that simpler form. So if the universe is as simple as it can be,
retaining all its currently observable properties, then it follows that is
inherently un-replicable. Or, put another way, the universe is its own
replication.

Simulation is another matter. Simulation by its nature cuts corners. Otherwise
why bother? The challenge of the game of deciding if our universe is a
simulation is finding a way to spot the shortcuts taken in the simulation.

~~~
PhilWright
Occam's razor cannot be used to assert that when something exists, if must be
or indeed is likely, to be in its simplest possible form. Human DNA has plenty
of redundant areas and yet we still exist. Indeed, probably all organism have
a non-simplest form of DNA and yet still do just fine. We only have one
example of a universe and even for that we have an imperfect understanding of
its working. It is therefore impossible to know or assert that the universe is
it its simplest possible form.

~~~
blacksqr
By form I don't mean physical form of objects in the universe, but the form of
physical law which describes all observable events which compose the universe.
That that form is the simplest it can be is exactly what Occam's Razor
suggests. It is that form that must be grasped in order to assess the
difficulty of replicating the universe in digital form, which is the topic of
the linked article.

Neither I nor Occam _assert_ that the universe is in its simplest possible
form, Occam suggests that is the likeliest assumption, and so far he's been on
the money. Reasoning from other assumptions would require extraordinary
evidence.

People do use Occam's Razor to reason about the nature of the universe. Here
is a reference to an argument that the Bohm-DeBroglie interpretation of
quantum physics is incorrect because Occam's Razor: [1]

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory#Occam's-razor_criticism)

------
andyidsinga
fwiw - this article was worth glancing at just to get the link to the debate
on the subject hosted by Neil deGrasse Tyson :
[https://www.amnh.org/explore/news-
blogs/podcasts/2016-isaac-...](https://www.amnh.org/explore/news-
blogs/podcasts/2016-isaac-asimov-memorial-debate-is-the-universe-a-simulation)

