[bwood]

I've been compiling a list of ways in which physical reality is similar to game engines or mechanical simulation in general. Here's my list so far:

- The observer effect, quantum entanglement and wavefunction collapse --> lazy evaluation

- Speed of light --> speed of causality to resolve the object interaction problem O(n^2)

- Quanta of energy, Planck's length --> discretization of reality to limit computational precision

- Unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics --> reality is implemented with mathematics

- Parsimonious physics --> simple physical rules are less computationally expensive to evaluate

- Entropy --> stability of the simulation and a guaranteed "wind down"

[szvsw]

For speed of light, a more direct analogue (though your example still makes sense) would be what is often called the “speed of sound” in numerical methods (like the finite difference method, aka FDM), which is often closely related to both temporal and spatial discretization schemes and can lead to numerical instability (cf. CFL condition, Von Neumann stability analysis, etc). It’s also related to things like stiff problems. It essentially has to do with how fast computational information propagates through the simulated domain. Note that it is still called “the speed of sound” even when you are not simulating the wave equation! (At least by my profs)

[state_less]

The simulation framing tends to draw deterministic connotations. I think when people think of a simulation or perhaps physical interpretations, they imagine life as happening to them, rather than through them. I think it’s easy to perceive it one way or the other, and what you seek you will find.

But something like ‘lazy evaluation’ could provide a bridge between the two views. A choice is made AND a physically compatible path is observed as if it were always so from the past to the present.

Personally, I think of the universe is alive with choice and we do get to participate.

PS. I kept a copy of Kip Thorne’s Black Holes and Time Warps on my nightstand as a kid - it filled me with fascination. Thanks Kip!

[szvsw]

> The simulation framing tends to draw deterministic connotations.

I bristle at this because there is obviously a massive amount of probabilistic programming methodology and stochastic simulation techniques out there, but at the end of the day in terms of connotation you are probably correct…

[nickpsecurity]

Add a few more observations:

1. The laws of the universe require unimaginable power, knowledge, and precision to implement. Its Creator must have these traits.

2. It doesn’t fail. Everything humans build requires maintenance but still fails. That this universe runs with a 100% reliability rate shows its maintainer’s power, knowledge, and perfection. It also shows He is sustaining us every second. He’s thinking about and caring for His creation.

3. Humans appear hardwired to seek who God is. So, the Creator wants us to look for them.

4. Even as children, humans have basic notions of love, justice, and are relational. The Creator is a relational, moral being who wants them to think like that.

5. All life passes through genes that carry some appearance and behavior. The higher creations raise their offspring. The Creator designed us to bear children who we teach. We’re creators in a way, too.

6. Many claim the Creator reveals Himself to them. One had objective proof, power, and outcomes that back that up (eg GetHisWord.com). The Creator has purpose for us which He helpfully shares. Jesus also lived it, too, in the same flesh before dying for our sins.

Just these six suggest that, in contrast to gaming, our world is run by God who has power, omniscience, morals, and a relationship with His people. So, that says the way to win is to be close to Him (Jesus) while playing the game by His rules. Also, to enjoy learning how it works which is endlessly deep and fun. :)

In contrast, a game engine or computer doesn’t compare mostly because of how the universe works perfectly despite billions upon billions upon billions of interactions. It can’t be overstated how unlikely that is based on all observations of reality. It’s truly astounding.

[whoknw]

If you are willing to argue in good faith (no pun intended), I'd recommend for you to read Spinoza. Spinoza builds on your argument number one and argues that there can only be one substance, and this substance is God. In a nutshell: God is everything that exists, we do not exist outside of God (we are "modes" of God, if I remember correctly). Spinoza also argues that by virtue of being the only substance, God exists necessarily and does not have a choice.

The implications of this logic create problems for the Judeo-Christian stance. Absolute morality goes out of the window and a few other things with it as well.

[Kbelicius]

> 1. The laws of the universe require unimaginable power, knowledge, and precision to implement. Its Creator must have these traits.

Since you are adding these observation in the context of the universe being a simulation none of the above need to be true. The one who designed the universe did not necessarily have the knowledge to implement (code the universe), build the hardware that it runs on or built the power source that is powering it all.

Why did you jump to the conclusion that it is only one person/being doing everything?

> 2. It doesn’t fail. Everything humans build requires maintenance but still fails. That this universe runs with a 100% reliability rate shows its maintainer’s power, knowledge, and perfection. It also shows He is sustaining us every second. He’s thinking about and caring for His creation.

How do you know that it doesn't fail? What would failure even look like? Wouldn't something like the heat death of the universe signify its failure?

How do you know that the universe runs with 100% reliability?

Why mention that everything that humans build requires maintenance when even the universe, by your own words, requires maintenance by its creator?

> 3. Humans appear hardwired to seek who God is. So, the Creator wants us to look for them.

Humans appear hardwired to seek explanations to phenomena. So much so that when they can not logically explain a phenomena they will make up an explanation. Isn't this more logical than your statement, if not, why?

In your point 4 and 5 you are just saying because some facts of the universe thus god.

> 6. Many claim the Creator reveals Himself to them. One had objective proof, power, and outcomes that back that up (eg GetHisWord.com). The Creator has purpose for us which He helpfully shares. Jesus also lived it, too, in the same flesh before dying for our sins.

Did not share it with me. Why?

[anthk]

That's a bunch of fallacies.