Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I’m sorry. Writing select words with all-caps and calling the idea names is not making your point more persuasive.

> You still have to explain THAT.

I see your point there. Sadly the universe is not obliged to be easy to understood. “If X then I have further questions, therefore not X.” Is not a logical reasoning I recognise.

What I am saying is that you can’t argue that we are not in a computer because that would bring up a host of questions.

> That is different from "we're living in a computational medium" which doesn't claim it's simulating something else

Interesting. The way I use these they are synonymous in my mind. I don’t claim that there is something else out there which the simulation mimics. If you have some state representation and some rules to describe how the state propagates then I would describe a computer program which calculates new states based on the old one a simulator. This is the sense how I use the word when I say “we might be living in a simulation”. If this bothers you feel free to just imagine that I am saying “we might be living in a computational medium”.

> and is the only level of existence

Now, why exactly do you belive that? Why not 2 levels? Or 3? Why do you feel believing that there is only one level of existence is more justified than those other arbitrary numbers?



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: