d023n

What exactly do you mean?

particularly: "You would need a very complex computer to simulate our current universe which seems highly unlikely." ((((thing to remember: the relationships among the to-be-mentioned universes are not about spatial size even though i do mention it. but universe A is not 3D-inside of universe B, it is being processed abstractly in universe B.))) imagine that our universe, the 3D web of galaxy cluster filaments, has a finite diameter of 50 billion lightyears, where if you went in a straight line far enough in any direction, you'd end up where you started. the calculated diameter of 93 billion lightyears just means the stars have come full circle, but we just haven't been able to tell yet. dark matter is real, but dark energy is just an optical illusion (for the sake of this argument). anyways, this is huge, in terms of information content. godzillions of events are happening simultaneously and have been doing so for a relatively long interval of time. now imagine that the universe simulating us happens to have a physics very similar to ours, in fact, they made us while trying to learn about their own physics. so they're 3D and are made of matter and energy, etc. however, they could only manage to run a 50 billion lightyear diameter universe simulation that's dense with events to the amount we are. their universe, by comparison, is 10 trillion lightyears in diameter and, in addition to the massive computer processing us, is dense with events to an incredibly greater degree. spatial size aside, their universe would necessarily be "bigger" than ours because they operationally contain us. also, their "planck rate" when compared with the processing speed of the simulation we're in, would be necessarily faster just as nothing in our universe can exceed our planck rate (the speed of light). entanglement speed is attributable to the fact that the device running our simulation could have a vastly quicker processing speed. for the sake of it, imagine that the yet greater universe simulation that's running the 10 trillion diameter lightyear universe is also similar to ours for the same reasons, but their universe is 8 trillion trillion lightyears in diameter and is dense with events to such a degree that the 10 trillion lightyear diameter universe simulation is considered insignificant to them; like a game of pong to us. this trend of greater and greater, as well as older and older and faster and fater, simulations would necessarily continue without limit. i know this is infinite regression, obviously, but that's the point. i can't accept "something from nothing" or an inexplicable basis like gods or flying spaghetti monsters. i also cannot accept that our 3D universe is spatially infinite. of course, whether or not reality is infinite or finite is unfalsifiable in either case, but saying it's finite is simply stopping the search. i //prefer// an infinite reality, and i prefer that infinitude to be based on nested information processing. i guess what i'm saying is that it /is/ possible. for us to be a simulation in an infinite hierarchy of simulations. but i also understand that the basis for this is just personal choice. if you want to disagree, go for it. just make sure you really want to think that reality exists the way you think it does.

Could you explain further, please?

This is a rough summary/sketch of my philosophy. Nick Bostrom got me looking. Eric Steinhart comfirmed some thoughts I'd been having. And Brian Whitworth has neat ideas. Aside from the influence of these individuals, I came up with what I've got here on my own. I'm curious what other people think. I understand that the simulation hypothesis is nonscientific since it's unfalsifiable (but so is any claim about the finite/infinite size of reality), and I definitely understand that infinite regression isn't popular. I guess what I'm asking are these 3 questions. Who else thinks like this? Who has problems with this, and why? What other possible (not nonsensical) options are there (as to the nature of reality)? Thanks! Ray. ~~~ "Regression," in the sense herein, is the idea of considering a previous state. "Fullness" is the idea of computational size (rather than simply spatial size); information potential. “Subsumption” is the idea of a fuller system being responsible for containing/supporting some given system. For example, “concrete subsumption” is the idea of a more concrete system holding a concrete system, like the brain holding the mind or a console holding a game. The infinitely regressive simulation hypothesis is a variant of the regressive simulation hypothesis, and the simulation hypothesis states: Our “concrete” universe, the Cosmos (3D space, galaxies, cells, atoms, etc.), exists as some amount of information processing and is occurring on (by way of) some logical, “sub-concrete” device, which exists within a subsuming universe, which is necessarily fuller, faster, and older than our Cosmos but could have an entirely different physics. Our Cosmos is “abstract” within a greater, subsuming universe. The regressive simulation hypothesis applies the simulation hypothesis to our Cosmos, to our subsuming universe, and perhaps to further subsuming universes. The infinitely regressive simulation hypothesis applies the simulation hypothesis to every subsuming universe of our Cosmos, which means: The simulation hypothesis applies to our Cosmos and to any universe, necessarily leading to the endless description of ever fuller, faster, and older universes.