(June 30, 2014 at 10:18 am)Rhythm Wrote: Whew!. That one almost slipped by me. That definitely does not follow. Couldn't your programmer have put us 1 lvl away from "the top" - and yet more things more levels "down"?
But wouldn't that just be part of the simulation we happen to be in? There would only be the programmer who is in fundamental reality. This isn't quite the same thing as our programmer being in a simulation which was programmed by another programmer who is in another simulation etc.
(June 30, 2014 at 10:18 am)Rhythm Wrote: Speaking of this top down and bottom up bit. Is a top down universe what we experience when we observe whatever part of it we -can- observe? Perhaps what we can;t see is full of topdown stuff -
(June 30, 2014 at 10:18 am)Rhythm Wrote: but that still doesn't leave us with any rational reason for claiming that it is there. It's just an unrealized possibility. I don't think we even have the grounds to establish a number for that possibility.
The physicists who think we might be in a computer simulation do have a rational reason for thinking it.
Cosmic rays offer clue our universe could be a computer simulation
(June 30, 2014 at 10:18 am)Rhythm Wrote: As far as explanations go, explaining the unknown by reference to the unknown seems counterproductive and difficult to me.
The unknown here is just an idea which they think could be proved right or wrong some day.
Where are the snake and mushroom smilies?