At the most recent Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate, [scientists gathered to address the question for the year: Is the universe a computer simulation? At the debate, host and celebrity astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson argued that the probability is that we live in a computer simulation.] This is the crux of Tyson’s point: if we take it as read that it is, in principle, possible to simulate a universe in some way, at some point in the future, then we have to assume that on an infinite timeline some species, somewhere, will simulate the universe. And if the universe will be perfectly, or near-perfectly, simulated at some point, then we have to examine the possibility that we live inside such a universe. And, on a truly infinite timeline, we might expect an almost infinite number of simulations to arise from an almost infinite number or civilizations — and indeed, a sophisticated-enough simulation might be able to let its simulated denizens themselves run universal simulations, and at that point all bets are officially off.”
A simulation necessitates an objective boundary separating the simulation from reality.
Factually speaking, no objective boundary has ever been proven to exist (quantum physics reveals particle distinction is blurry).
Reality, according to mainstream science, is purely energetic.
Calling something a simulation requires the perspective of that caller.
Throughout infinite possibilities, there’s also the set of possibilities equally validating that we’re not in a simulation.
Spin is not science.
Science (when uncorrupted) is the righteous answer to spin.
I wish the question of the year (and beyond as may be needed) would be, “Is there an objective boundary?”
When the answer is revealed that there cannot be (due to the purely energetic quality of reality), then scientists can finally understand the need to take distinctions less seriously as the subjective leverage they constitute.
Science is energy.
That’s not insanity.
That’s hardcore logic open to any respectful critique, while I continue my casual energetic flow through scientific obscurity.
Am I wrong for expressing that science (and society) demands better?