Everyone saying it would be computationally expensive to simulate our universe is failing to put their mind outside of the box of our universe. Imagine for a moment that there's a universe which compares to our universe similarly to how our world compares to one inside of Conway's Game of life.
Granted, this scenario doesn't provide us with anything we can take action on, but the idea that we're in a simulation at all doesn't, either.
Some self-replicating "creature" in Conway's Game of Life could rowhammer the machine it runs in such that the creature (or a copy of it) now exists outside the Game and is able to replicate across the machine and maybe even across the network. If it takes control of a robot, you could argue it's "escaped" its simulation and now exists in our physical world.
The odds of all that happening without it being prevented are all but zero.
We have a better chance that one of the simulators grows attached and—against protocol—decides to uplift us from the simulation into a form where we can directly communicate with them.
So you only have to assume physics totally different from ours, and we can’t observe it. Isn’t that a bit of a weak point? And what would be the point of this simulation that has been running for billions of years?
>you only have to assume physics totally different from ours
You don't have to assume anything is true if you don't want to, but if you want to consider whether we're living in a simulation, it's probably worth considering.
>And what would be the point of this simulation that has been running for billions of years?
First, it's billions of years in our time. Second, what's the point of Conway's Game of Life?
> You don't have to assume anything is true if you don't want to, but if you want to consider whether we're living in a simulation, it's probably worth considering.
Which, for me, is a dead end. It's the same as assuming there's a God, except the moral implications are worse.
> First, it's billions of years in our time.
So, if billions of years of our time fly by like your average simulation run in "their" universe, the simulation can't be very meaningful to them. And it makes the distance between our and "their" physics even larger.
> what's the point of Conway's Game of Life?
None, and that's why nobody runs one with 10^120 cells for billions of years. And if somebody did, the result would be incomprehensible. The gap between us and our creators must then be incomprehensible for us. All this is so outlandish, that the word "likely" shouldn't be anywhere near this discussion.
> And what would be the point of this simulation that has been running for billions of years?
There is zero evidence for or against the simulation hypothesis, so why would some random person on HN be able to have the answer to this question even if we are in a simulation or even if we simply assume that we are?
Granted, this scenario doesn't provide us with anything we can take action on, but the idea that we're in a simulation at all doesn't, either.