An intelligent being created in HIS world may endanger HIM. It is much safer and cheaper to create intelligent simulated beings to think, invent and work out new inventions to be extracted as required. Judging from the simulated universe that we now know, I think that we are still far away from the problems that HE would like us to involve.

I also try to explain “Relativity” in the simulated world. I am not studying physics. Assuming there is a speed for our brain to interpretate the data from the Creator to form the successive holograms. Assuming more data in a denser environment (more material) and/or higher speed (larger area), a brain (A) in a lighter and/or slower place produces more holograms than a brain(B) in a denser and/or faster place in a given time measured from A or B. If each sucessive holograms means the passage of a time unit, the time experienced by brain (A) will be faster. Is this the reason of ‘Relativity’?

There is also limits to the amount of data that our brain can intrepretate. The limits are the speed of light and the black hole. Given that the brain cannot process the amount of data of a black hole, the concept of falling into a black hole or passing a warmhole may be impossible in our holographic world.

Given that we are simulated beings, what should be the primary purpose for our physics (or science)? My friends, I suggest ‘to find ways to exit the hologram so that we can meet the Creator’.

Is it possible? Despite our effort, there is still no sign of any other civilisation. Perhaps, the advanced civilsations had already found ways to exit and found the Creator or be invited to serve the Creator.

If you think belief in a simulated universe is reasonable, then I guess you would also think that belief in gods is reasonable.
Besides, it’s the same old reasonable retort: from whence gods.
In other words, you haven’t solved anything.

If this is a simulated universe, presumably it is being simulated by someone in a real universe, so let’s just stick with this universe being real, otherwise we are into that infinite regress of simulated universes with no solution in sight.

Is Science confirming, in a roundabout way, the existence of a God?

But, he argues, it is possible that this problem has not been solved (despite extensive attempts to do so) because it is insolvable – because at its most fundamental level the universe is analog and not discrete.

I fondly remember working at Honeywell’s Systems & Research Center in the 1960s, where we built aircraft cockpit simulators (UH-1, AH56-A, F-4. etc) driven by hybrid computer systems using a couple of PACE analog computers and a Sigma Data Systems digital machine.

God‘s throne?

The real point is whether the simulation of a universe is computable. Regardless of what I think on this issue, there is no consideration or thought given to this. I’m open to being corrected (not much of a personal virtue, because in science what I feel in the end doesn’t matter,) but aren’t there some computational processes which no algorithm can judge to be terminated? Wouldn’t any genuinely scientific speculation as to the possibility of a virtual universe have an argument that the simulating program can specify when all calculations must terminate? In other words, isn’t it true that this hypothetical simulating program by everything we know about computability impossible unless we can make a case that there is no such calculation needed to simulate our universe? I don’t think these questions give answers that allow us to deem the simulation hypothesis anything but wild conjecture untrammelled by any rational thought.

There is also another aspect which seems to go unremarked. What is the point of a simulation which does not provide information to its creators? In order for any simulation to be of interest it seems to me, there must be some sort of output to its creators. There certainly is no physical mechanism for information to be obtained from the virtual universe and used to project an image onto a viewscreen in front of God’s Throne. There is also the question of economy, which is why anyone would need to simulate a whole universe in such detail? A cosmologist would not always need to simulate life forms, and a biologist would not always need to simulate dark energy. The hypothesis covertly assumes omniscient observer(s) who would be capable of assimilating unbelievable amounts of data.