If the universe was fine tuned for our life...

[Jenny A]

So to put it all together, a sub-reality is an existing undivided dimensional space governed by rules other than those of our reality?

Either that definition is overly broad, or there are none. Let's start with overly broad. Have you ever played classic non-computer aided D&D? Words and graph paper describe the space and the rules for the space. Although rather more primitively depicted, it is every bit as much a space as the graphics in a computer game. There are rules governing that space which are primarily those of chance. To determine what happens in the space we roll dice of various numbers of sides.

Many war games played with cards and boards are similar. At the simplest level so is chess. All of them have a depiction of dimensional space with rules for operating within the space. Other than the artfulness with which they are depicted and the speed at which the rules can be calculated, these spaces fit your definition every bit as much as a computer game space.

Here's the rub. They aren't really extant. The spaces of these sub-realities don't really exist. They are just imaginary spaces depicted with more or less ingenuity. Consequently, I don't think they are nearly enough like reality to tell us anything about how reality was constructed.

The rules can be identical. It can't be the same space. I was specific about that in my definition. I don't believe your chess example satisfies my definition for that reason. Your D&D example....however..... I don't have a problem with it. I have long thought that one can create a sub reality in ones mind or imagination. But for the sake of argument, lets grant that chess, card games, etc are all the kinds of things that satisfy the definition of sub reality I offered. All those things you have mention....none of them exist unless intelligence exists.....so all those things add credibility to my inductive argument....that sub realities appear to only exists as the product of intelligence. Again, I challenge you or anyone to find something that satisfies my definition of sub reality....that doesn't require intelligence to exist. If you can...my argument is demolished.

You are right, I did make the definition overly broad, I can't imagine it being more broad....but I did that for a reason. That reason being I didn't want to fall into the trap Rasetsu warn's against. Namely I didn't want to focus on one area that is purposely rich with the products of intelligence.

As far as being extant...that is really a matter of perspective. It is possible that you are a simulant. From your perspective our reality is as real as it gets. However from the perspective of those running the simulation...your reality doesn't really exist. Its just a procedural generation running inside a box. Which perspective is valid? If your simulation contains conscious beings, I would say error on the safe side and assume a simulated reality is a valid reality. Right now its no big deal if you choose the wrong perspective...nobody is going to be harmed. That might not always be the case.

Wait a minute here. For the existence of sub-realities (as you define them) to have any predictive power for a larger model, like the universe we inhabit, they would have to be a great deal more like the universe, i.e. real. And that's the rub, the space these sub-realities describe is imaginary. They don't actually exist anymore than the reality in a novel exists.

Speculating that we might be part of a simulation like a computer game is fun, but it doesn't add to the likelihood that such is the case. We know of no simulated reality that describes actually created space. Therefore I don't see that sub-realities are of any use in determining how the actual universe came to be.

The thing about all the sub realities we have discussed is none of them are fine tuned for sustained emergent complexity. I have played with evolution simulators and they are cool....but the emergent complexity always stalls out...it always plateaus. I predict that as we learn to fine tune the sub realities to create sustained emergent complexity....we will begin to see things like consciousness emerge from them.

One dream I have had is to take a game like Skyrim...and make the monsters in it subject to natural selection.....but now I am rambling.

Cool and very sci-fi thought, but there's no evidence that complexity leads to conscienceness.