Alright, I see what you are saying. If someone makes a specific claim about the intelligent creator then it becomes the domain of science. Like if someone says, “God answers prayers and so if people pray for someone who is sick they are more likely to recover” then we can (and have) test(ed) that. It’s within the domain of science.
If someone said, “I think we are running in the Unreal engine” then we would look for specific known bugs in the unreal engine. But the simulation hypothesis is that we are running on unknown technology coded in an unknown coding language by beings with unknown intelligence and psychology. It doesn’t allow specific claims to be made.
I’ve never heard a remotely testable or plausible claim from anyone testing for simulations, which is why I asked what evidence would exist above. In the video they mention two things that make no sense:
-
A simulated universe would be finite because of finite computing power. But the reason we can currently believe that computing power is limited is because of the nature of our universe. If we instead knew the universe to be continuous and infinitely divisible, we’d probably be on the hunt for a technology to harness that to get infinite computing power. So, if our reality is finite, that only suggests we are in a simulation if we also assume base reality has finite limitations, in which case, isn’t it a simulation too?
-
The idea of universal constant drift being evidence is just foolish. World of Warcraft accumulates bugs over the week so they do a weekly server reset. They don’t change the acceleration due to gravity. If G drifts over time, guessing that it drifts because we are in a simulation is on the same footing as ancients guessing that lightning happens because Zeus throws it.
If someone said, “I have this model of a base reality and it mathematically predicts that G will vary by one trillionth of it’s value every month and then abruptly reset to it’s previous value on the second Wednesday,” and then they proved that was true, I’d be listening.
