Looking into this a little bit this is definitely a false statement. The simulation hypothesis is older. I misremembered this article: https://www.newscientist.com/letter/mg23531413-400-10-quantum-entanglement-as-evidence-of-simulation/
Looks sick, just got the audiobook for bath time tonight 
how do you define simulation? I’m more apt to believe it’s like plato’s cave what we experience is just a shadow of reality and differentiating that from a simulation is quite possibly just a syntactical exercise.
Konrad Zuse, the guy who basically invented contemporary computers, in his book Calculating Space basically posited that we may be living in a computed system, and defined “cybernetics” as the study that combined mathematics, physics, and computing/information theory (if memory serves).
Sure why not? At the very least, we know enough of physics to see through the matter myth. Our world is a lot more like a lightshow than than our common sense perception of irreducible stable objects with discrete and independent existence.
But I like it when science suddenly comes up with a great new idea that turns out to be an old theological idea with a different coat of paint. This sounds a lot like Berkeleyan idealism.
Naturally. Just my luck that I wind up in the cheap knock off galaxy and not the finely crafted designer galaxy.
It’s definitely a simulation, but it’s not a simulation of another thing.
One of them (Be, Inc.) is selling fully operational Batmobiles (the BeOS)
We hardly knew ye.
Maybe the whole idea of ‘simulation’ is a wrong term for this. It could very well be that reality is a computational progressive system. Life as we know it seems to be that way with genetic coding and evolution by modified iteration.
We both do and do not live in a simulation. All the systems that generate you & your experience have the same “you” in them. Even if you figured out a way to determine if you’re in a particular kind of simulation, it would just leave two "you"s after you figured it out - the one(s) in that simulation and the other one(s). Before you made the measurement, it would just be the one “you”, existing in the simulation and in the other systems.
Mr. Peabody would presumably respond with his iconic answer:
“Quiet, you!”
What you have stated here is, based on my research over decades now, the essence of the mystic tradition.
The “speculating on the nature of reality is useless” people are so darn cute. tossles their hair
Some of the above questions are answered here; it is a sequel of sorts, but also deals with simulated Afterlifes, and why that may or may not be a good idea…
Look, figuring out how the universe works is great, but jumping ahead to the conclusion and working backwards from there annoys me a lot. Humans feel the need to assign meaning to everything, it’s a flaw I feel, sometimes there is no meaning.
Speculating on the nature of reality has utility as entertainment, at least, I suppose.
Whereas investigating it…
In all fairness, Elon has simply observed that since sims are likely to be far more numerous than base realities that the the odds are good that we’re a simulation.
He also says that if you can’t tell whether you’re in a base reality or a simulation, then it makes no difference – it doesn’t actually matter.
I’m not sure how that’s “a substitute for religion” and I’m pretty sure that Elon doesn’t treat it that way. He seems to regard it as an interesting but ultimately irrelevant philosophical question.
Near as I can tell, anyway.
If I think we are or we aren’t, I’m not really doing the thinking if we are, now am I?
