Darksand

But none but trolls from you. Very scientific. I do not understand why you have such an emotional reaction to this topic.

yet still no arguments against my premise.

No. AI-answer: planets in No Man's Sky remain the same when you return to them. The game procedurally generates planets based on a mathematical formula (a seed), and this formula ensures that any planet you visit will always be identical each time you return, even if you've made changes to it. AI-answer:No Man's Sky does not store the data for the entire procedurally generated universe. Instead, it uses a set of algorithms and a "seed" number to generate the game world on the fly as players explore. When a player visits a location, the game calculates the data for that area based on the seed and their current position, rather than retrieving it from a pre-existing database. This allows the game to create a vast universe with seemingly infinite possibilities without requiring massive amounts of storage. Quick google search shows this is not the case for no mans sky. Savegames no mans sky Would there be others that are big, could be, for many reasons, but as shown for no mans sky, it isn't needed at all. Also, not everything would be procedurally generated in No mans sky. I am not sure, but can imagine that changes made by a player needs to be stored. That would not be deterministic in the game right?

I Changed the order of these lines. No mans sky and other games like Minecraft or Star citizen use procedurally generated worlds. When you go back to a tree, it is the same tree. If you do not understand procedurally generated, it is really hard for me to argue the questions. The planets always generate the same way as long you do not add other procedurally generated processes to that world (like natural processes which can change the world and the tree) And let me add this, if I carve my name in that tree, me being a part of this procedurally generated reality, my carving could also be part of it (not a strong believer of determinism, but could be plausible). Actually that is the only issue I have with the concept, it needs to be deterministic or there needs to be a mechanism in which collapsed wave functions disappear or maybe even another mechanism. Why I think this is, is because a collapsing wave function would need ever increasing memory (it goes from probability to what it actually is and that needs to be "stored in memory") if it is not deterministic (as in it will always be procedurally generated and does not need to be stored) or does not disappear.

This is a complete non answer. It wasn't an answer, there was not a well explained argument against my OP. Not going into whataboutism. Tell me why it is a problem in a simulated world, then I will try to answer it. Further it is your hypothesis not mine so it is up to you to make it work. Make what work? I could be here until the end of time explaining how everything works. I am not stating the universe is simulated, I am just stating it is possible and I haven't heard any good argument against it yet. Observer ? what observer ? Are you saying that the universe and its host computer are not all there is ? you guys came up with the relativity of simultaneity. A concept of special relativity that states that the perception of simultaneity is not absolute, but depends on the observer's frame of reference. This concept does not inherently argue against the simulation hypothesis, as in, there is no arguent where this cannot also be simulated. Nowhere am I talking about anything of this outside the simulation. You claim speed is important. The observers reference frame is different when you are in motion or in the presence of mass. So demonstrate a calculation where this is so. Theory of special relativity. you can do the calculations yourself. Have you ever designed a circuit board or do you know anything about them ? Irrelevant, Explain to me why it cannot be simulated, You need to consider all of my questions, not just a selected few to demonstrate that you hypothetical computer is even theoretically feasible under ideal conditions, let alone a practicality. A human brain evolved completely by itself. why couldn't a simpler computer do the same. And yes, you can have an abstract idea when I use the word computer (like a brain or something completely alien where something just does logical operations on something we cannot even comprehend. You do know you can do logical operations on baseballs as bits right? Or browse the internet via smoke signals, as long the DAC is right. It's just slow. I asked you how big is it. Why would there be size or space outside the universe, you do know this is an arbitrary question right? We know size and distance, however a Photon does not experience distance at all. Therefore how far apart are the first and last cells holding the data ? Cells, who is talking about cells? First explain why a simulation even needs cells. Therefore how long does it take for the 'ready' or other clock signal to propagate from one to the other ? I don't know, it could be a second, it could be a million years. It does not matter. Why does this simulator needs this, maybe it is just a machine with a needle that does logical operations on a substance we would call sand. You can't just say "A computer can calculate it" any more than you can say "A six digit calculator can calculate Pi accurately to sixty places" Strawman It feels like people do not like the concept of the possibility that the universe could be simulated. I also have the feeling there are some reasons other than scientific ones.

It has to do with the observer's frame of reference, I just gave an example where one observer is at a relativistic speed. So explain to me why it has Nothing to do with speed? I still don't see an issue where this would be a good argument against a simulation. this can not be simulated?

Maybe because we don't know all the math yet? I think if it is simulated, it only simulates the rules of the universe. those rules give the universe substance, as in matter and laws. the universe then evolves by it self in this simulation. In a game we need to have interfaces to outside observers (gamers hehe). In the simulation, the observers are simulated too. They too are a product of the rules and laws. I am not saying the entire universe is deterministic, but that would help a simulation a lot. I once played around with a live evolution program with some simple 3 creatures running for food. Not taking into account this was rendered in 3D, the amount of math involved to move the creatures with simple muscles and bones to the food is unbelievable large, but it didn't use the "traditional 3D (as in moving bone to coordinate x,y,z etc)" math at all, just the math needed in a neural network. It was really eye opening. A cheetah does not do math, but the amount of math needed to chase a gazelle (as in put left paw at x,y,z etc) is immense. I read it and find it more of an argument for a simulation. Why would it be an issue? If someone goes relativistic speeds, time slows. I can imagine you are stepping more outside the common simulation speed. I admit this is just guessing, but why would relativity be an argument against a simulation theory? I am honestly interested to hear a good reason. This sounds a little bit as a creationists argument... "For example, we now know that the simplest life form is far more complex than anything humans have ever made. It is far more reasonable to claim that a space shuttle can randomly assemble and launch itself than to claim that a simple life form can arise spontaneously from random chemical interactions." Don't know anything about that theory, sounds cool but I am always wary about theories that use unnecessary complex language.

Can you tell me how this is relevant? Why can't the real universe be procedurally generated? Some plants really look like fractals. Who is saying we have all the information in the universe? Quantum mechanics does show something strange that could suggest that not everything is "rendered" (Wave function collapse). And what is up with Blackholes, as if that is a garbage collector where strange things happen with time (maybe there the capability of the simulation ends/struggles?) Same with speed of light. Photons don't experience time or distance. That makes simulating it easier. In the Matrix, there were still interfaces to minds, in my example, the minds are part of the simulation.

Who is saying the simulator is evolving with nothing to process? Also, some stuff evolved with complete different functions in the past, I don't see why this is relevant. Let me ask a simple question, would you agree that in my concept, a human brain would have enough computing power to simulate a universe?

The rather obvious point is that our brain works like a computer, with extreme complexity. No programmer there. just evolved in its "perfect" environment. I could imagine the simulator ("hard- and software") could evolve somewhere.

I am not talking about a programmer. It could evolve naturally. Clock speed? not important, it can go fast one second, sow the other, stop for a million years, go fast again, go backwards. or just be slow all the time. the simulation would have no idea. Nice strawman, come with a better argument. Why are we arguing this? we do know we can create huge simulations just based on a few line of code and a good programmer can do this in very little memory. Our brains evolved, they have memory, why is it so hard to imagine something that can do that?

Correct, and I am not saying the universe is simulated, let alone how. I am just saying it is a possibility. The biggest argument was always. Computer resources, with my OP, I think I took that argument away.

How sure are you about that? No Man's Sky features a vast universe with an estimated 18 quintillion (18,000,000,000,000,000,000) possible planet "seeds". While the game doesn't use all of these, it still contains a staggering number of star systems, estimated to be in the trillions. Specifically, there are about 256 galaxies, and within each galaxy, there are trillions of star systems. o Man's Sky requires a minimum of 8 GB of RAM. While the game's installation size is relatively small, around 15 GB, the RAM requirement is important for smooth gameplay, especially when exploring planets and landscapes according to Steam and Steam Community discussions. The size of the simulated does not always correspond to the size of the memory needed to simulate it.

So you just put this in speculations and say no, but nobody can give a logical argument against it?