Tell HN: If the universe can be simulated, it doesn't have to be
2 comments
I don't know, at this moment, what it means for something to be made real just by a set of equations. An equation can determine the future without that future having taken place. "being real", to me, means "being observable." If I can't observe/measure it, is it real?
This seems like a philosophical conversation.
This seems like a philosophical conversation.
All the digits of Pi exist, but you still need to do calculations to know what they are.
> All the digits of Pi exist
The last digit doesn't.
The last digit doesn't.
But here's the twist: if we can simulate the universe this way, it means that all possible outcomes and events are already defined by these mathematical rules. They exist in the realm of mathematics, whether or not we actually run the simulation. In other words, running the simulation doesn't "create" these events; it merely reveals what's already predetermined by the mathematical structure of the universe.
So, if the universe can be simulated, you don't actually need to run the simulation to make the universe real. Everything that happens is just the unfolding of mathematical possibilities that already "exist" in a way, independent of any simulation. This suggests that asking whether we are living in a simulation or not is irrelevant because our experiences and the universe's existence don't depend on the simulation being actively run by someone or something.