Physicists To Test If Universe Is A Computer Simulation (link)

I'm quite partial to the idea that this was actually the whole point of the experiment, and they just spun it as "Let's see if we're in the Matrix!" to get more public attention (and easier grant monies).

If you're interested in that kind of stuff, see this.

I'd say it would be very weak to negligible evidence in favor.

I think that the simulation hypothesis does not permit any evidence for or against that does not violate the laws of physics. There's no way to distinguish between being in a real universe, a discrete simulation of a continuous universe, a discrete simulation of a discrete universe, or a continuous simulation of either a discrete or continuous universe with limited measuring tools.

If the laws of physics starting changing in dramatically interesting ways, I might see that as evidence of simulation... and now I need to reevaluate the evidence about cold fusion in that light...

If you do that, it's analytical physics, not simulation. Unless you're just collapsing the wavefunction when you notice large entanglements, or something.

Huh. I'm certain that I hadn't read this before.

Obviously he gave it a little more thought than my own shower-musings received.

What, can't they search for local reversals of entropy?

My trouble was in figuring out what "interesting" means to the beings which can model a universe.

I find it repugnant that some beings created a universe where quintillions of sentient creatures have been suffering and dying for half a billion years on this planet alone.

Meanwhile, they find something utterly alien about solar fusion repugnant yet utterly fascinating.

I find it repugnant that some beings created a universe where quintillions of sentient creatures have been suffering and dying for half a billion years on this planet alone.

Isn't that an inevitable conclusion of the basic "the universe is a simulation" premise?

wrong post.

Ah. This one, I've read.

Thank you by the way, I had actually remembered about that as I was typing this up (In a sort of "Speaking of Religions with unusual premises..." way), but forgotten what it was called and who came up with it. I had speculated that it might have been from a Heinlein novel, since the half-remembered premise of "lone protagonist is saved from arctic peril and then gets to listen to someone politely explain their philosophy" sounded vaguely Heinleinish.

There's a Freefall comic where the captain says to end all virtual reality simulations and someone else covers his eyes, making him scream. Can't find it offhand though.

In the absence of other evidence, could you not use some sort of complexity measure to estimate that, if our universe is being simulated, the simulating universe is more likely to have simpler laws than more complex ones? (And maybe even that having no simulating universe--meaning our universe is not a simulation--is even simpler, and therefore more likely?) But I have no idea what the actual difference in probabilities would be, if you could.

If the Flying Spaghetti Monster is running the simulation, it is non-falsifiable, but also not worth considering because he can just stick his noodley appendage in and undo any results he doesn't like anyway retroactively. Its not like we would know the difference.

For us to break the fourth wall, either our creators would have to desire it or be pretty bad at running simulations.

Deliberate "fooling" may not even be required. Are Redstone Computers colossal and slow because Notch was trying to deceive some Minecraft denizens? It seems to simply be a necessary fact of "emulation" that any computer built out of physics X is going to be no faster than the computer required to simulate physics X.

What matters is not knowledge but probability. Is it likely that something as complicated as our Universe would be simulated?

Is it likely that they would simulate something with vastly different rules than their own universe with such a high level of complexity?

It is possible that the Universe is a simulation, but it is highly improbable due to the difficulty and complexity inherent to doing so. Creating something of this level of complexity for non-simulation purposes is unlikely.

It is of course impossible to disprove it absolutely, but it doesn't really matter. You cannot disprove the FSM or a sufficiently dedicated staff making you believe that reality is real when they're actually setting it up around you, but it really doesn't matter because it is non-falsifiable.

If there is no reason to believe in something, then it is incorrect to believe in it, even if it happens to be true.