The redneck strike again.

[Confused Ape]

When we find a baseball, we see that it has mass - one of the characteristics of what we might call "the universe" Why do we then not say to ourselves "Hmn, how curious, perhaps the universe is like a baseball?" Don't we make the much stronger claim - this baseball has characteristics consistent with something "of this universe"? If you could explain to me why this is true for a baseball but not a computer simulation, or if you could explain to me why we might have a rational justification for considering -the universe- as having some quality that belongs to a baseball, rather than the usual order in which we might place those objects in relation to each other - I'd be a little closer to convinced.

It's no good asking me. I'm not a physicist. These physicists think their idea is a possibility for reasons which only physicists understand so it's rational to them.

"If"

Well, there's this on the Cornell University Library Website which seems to be as far as they've got - Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation

---

Silas R. Beane, Zohreh Davoudi, Martin J. Savage

(Submitted on 4 Oct 2012 (v1), last revised 9 Nov 2012 (this version, v2))
Observable consequences of the hypothesis that the observed universe is a numerical simulation performed on a cubic space-time lattice or grid are explored. The simulation scenario is first motivated by extrapolating current trends in computational resource requirements for lattice QCD into the future. Using the historical development of lattice gauge theory technology as a guide, we assume that our universe is an early numerical simulation with unimproved Wilson fermion discretization and investigate potentially-observable consequences. Among the observables that are considered are the muon g-2 and the current differences between determinations of alpha, but the most stringent bound on the inverse lattice spacing of the universe, b^(-1) >~ 10^(11) GeV, is derived from the high-energy cut off of the cosmic ray spectrum. The numerical simulation scenario could reveal itself in the distributions of the highest energy cosmic rays exhibiting a degree of rotational symmetry breaking that reflects the structure of the underlying lattice.

---

I then discovered a general audience presentation of the above on the Washington University Dept Of Physics website - General Audience Presentation

The problem I find with digital philosophy is that it suggests that a higher level reality would be constrained by how things work in a lower level reality when there's no reason to make that assumption. That our computational models have these limits is no reason to suppose that if the universe were a simulation, those running the simulation would be under similar constraints

It sounds like Nick Bostrom could have got carried away with his stacked levels of reality but it's a fun idea to play around with. I've done a lot of googling to see if other physicists are saying that Silas R. Beane, Zohreh Davoudi and Martin J. Savage are barking mad but no results so far. It appears that mainstream scientists think they're being rational for hoping to test their numerical simulation idea.