Franco Vazza's 2025 paper is technically impressive, but it does not address the basic premise of Bostrom's Simulation Hypothesis. We just published a response in Frontiers in Physics.
The easier explanation is a multiverse where ours is a small fraction of a larger computer. If the layer above ours has Graham's number ofnparticles to work with at 1000x the speed of light, then one can easily do a full perfect Planck length simulation...even in an Everett Many Worlds version.
Yes, this is not a great objection, but I would also test there aren't any real ways to "disprove" simulation ideas and that's what makes them not scientific hypotheses, but philosophical ones. In particular, *any* finite stream of experience could theoretically be simulated by a suitable simulating computer. The key word is "finite" - there's some very precise theoretical math arguments that can be made here. Even better, the size of the program can be bounded: suppose you have an entire "videotape" of your lifetime. A program that simply emits that videotape hard-coded, is formally a program that "simulates" your lifetime - and that is clearly very small in "astronomical" terms, thus a program that does it with generalizable rules is just even smaller. It's just much, much larger than any program we have ever written. So actually, yes, it's possible - but I'd also argue what do you get with explaining power, because *anything* could be simulated in the simulation. I suppose it does something like maybe it increases reductionism, by reducing mind to the mere flipping of bits inside someone's giant computer, which could be deleted by the throw of their switch. Heh ...
There is at least one clear way to falsify a simulation hypothesis: Demonstrate that there is something about reality that is fundamentally incomputable. This is why physicists have moved way from arguing that SH is not falsifiable/not a scientific hypothesis, and have moved on to trying to falsify SH as a scientific hypothesis. All of these falsification attempts target the same thing: computability. If reality cannot be computed, it can't be a simulation.
Thanks. I am curious though about something else - and that is why or how is it that this is considered operationally distinct from "physicalism", which you claim it to contrast to on several occasions? In a strict sense, yes, replacing matter with computation would seem to perhaps be a departure from physicalism, it also does not say anything like that consciousness would be anything more than just the computed actions of a simulated brain, to be deleted whenever the computer wants to.
Yes, I think E Edge who authored this piece had in mind physicalism in the metaphysical sense of matter as constituting the intrinsic nature of the dispositions physics describes, or as you say the "strict sense," not necessarily with regard to the theory of mind or broader conceptions of physicalism. We have another paper in the works in which we comment on any ramifications SH has on consciousness and which theories of mind are compatible with SH, but our Frontiers response to Vazza remains agnostic on that.
If you were a conscious being in Minecraft, you'd assume there would be no way to simulate your world using the available Redstone. Vazza assumes a small world above this layer.
To his credit he did specify his target very clearly. A universe computing this Universe. both with exactly the same everything going on. It just ZERO to do with Bostrom's proposition.
And THAT'S why we wrote it.
It's just unbelievable to us that after 20 years-TWENTY!-that the simulation hypothesis (which, in discourse cites Bostrom typically) continues to misrepresent his whole concept.
I pray to the overlords that this comes to an end!
I feel like the ultimate caveat to the conversation about simulation theory is, that because we are embodied beings that perceive the universe through sensory organs.We never have a direct observation of reality. It's always being filtered through consciousness. There are some wonderful theories that consciousness is the basis of reality.
Frankly, we believe that yes simulation theory will inevitably lead to a consciousness-first ontology, or, probably better said, it will be among the major interpretative camps in the discourse---that's actually kinda why we do what we do 👍
Descartes demon doesnt really have a purpose, whereas if you read the simulation literature, various purposes are proposed as well as a coherent structure to the framework. Descartes provides a platform, but the simulation theory literature is far more robust than just his thought experiment. Simulism is that elaborated with a goals, structures, pressure points, etc.
It's funny that many physicists refute the simulation theory with the argument of not having enough computing power (ignoring all the mentioned optimizations, omissions and compression possibilities plus ignoring the question if the computer has to be based in physical hardware).
But then physics entertained the idea of a Multiverse for such a long time, where every every split second every single quantum level difference would result in a split into nearly two identical full universes. Where is all that gigantic amount of physical matter and energy supposed to come from?
We allegedly can't even compute it, but we can generate it by a factor somewhere in the gazillion area? Makes total sense.
The multiverse cost has always been baffling to me. Once David Chartrand wrote it out for me in math, which is a simple couple of equations, and I could finally understand WHY the idea is even on the table---Even still, logically that cost is so great that it makes everything feel meaningless. A terrific irony if there ever were one.
Yes, it's a desperate attempt at explaining the uncertainty on a quantum level with math equations. But Occam's Razor should have put an immediate end to this idea.
Explaining the origin of our universe as a grand cosmic accident is already a bit sketchy (hence the famous quote "Modern science is based on the principle: ‘Give us one free miracle and we’ll explain the rest'"), but now postulating a basically infinite amount of mass springing into existence every split second is simply ridiculous.
People like to ask "What powers the simulation", but nobody seems to ask "What powers or creates this infinite production of more and more physical universes with all the mass in them"?
The easier explanation is a multiverse where ours is a small fraction of a larger computer. If the layer above ours has Graham's number ofnparticles to work with at 1000x the speed of light, then one can easily do a full perfect Planck length simulation...even in an Everett Many Worlds version.
graham's number of particles at 1000x light speed is a new level of personal WANT I didn't even know I could muster. 🔥
Yes, this is not a great objection, but I would also test there aren't any real ways to "disprove" simulation ideas and that's what makes them not scientific hypotheses, but philosophical ones. In particular, *any* finite stream of experience could theoretically be simulated by a suitable simulating computer. The key word is "finite" - there's some very precise theoretical math arguments that can be made here. Even better, the size of the program can be bounded: suppose you have an entire "videotape" of your lifetime. A program that simply emits that videotape hard-coded, is formally a program that "simulates" your lifetime - and that is clearly very small in "astronomical" terms, thus a program that does it with generalizable rules is just even smaller. It's just much, much larger than any program we have ever written. So actually, yes, it's possible - but I'd also argue what do you get with explaining power, because *anything* could be simulated in the simulation. I suppose it does something like maybe it increases reductionism, by reducing mind to the mere flipping of bits inside someone's giant computer, which could be deleted by the throw of their switch. Heh ...
There is at least one clear way to falsify a simulation hypothesis: Demonstrate that there is something about reality that is fundamentally incomputable. This is why physicists have moved way from arguing that SH is not falsifiable/not a scientific hypothesis, and have moved on to trying to falsify SH as a scientific hypothesis. All of these falsification attempts target the same thing: computability. If reality cannot be computed, it can't be a simulation.
Thanks. I am curious though about something else - and that is why or how is it that this is considered operationally distinct from "physicalism", which you claim it to contrast to on several occasions? In a strict sense, yes, replacing matter with computation would seem to perhaps be a departure from physicalism, it also does not say anything like that consciousness would be anything more than just the computed actions of a simulated brain, to be deleted whenever the computer wants to.
Yes, I think E Edge who authored this piece had in mind physicalism in the metaphysical sense of matter as constituting the intrinsic nature of the dispositions physics describes, or as you say the "strict sense," not necessarily with regard to the theory of mind or broader conceptions of physicalism. We have another paper in the works in which we comment on any ramifications SH has on consciousness and which theories of mind are compatible with SH, but our Frontiers response to Vazza remains agnostic on that.
If you were a conscious being in Minecraft, you'd assume there would be no way to simulate your world using the available Redstone. Vazza assumes a small world above this layer.
To his credit he did specify his target very clearly. A universe computing this Universe. both with exactly the same everything going on. It just ZERO to do with Bostrom's proposition.
And THAT'S why we wrote it.
It's just unbelievable to us that after 20 years-TWENTY!-that the simulation hypothesis (which, in discourse cites Bostrom typically) continues to misrepresent his whole concept.
I pray to the overlords that this comes to an end!
I feel like the ultimate caveat to the conversation about simulation theory is, that because we are embodied beings that perceive the universe through sensory organs.We never have a direct observation of reality. It's always being filtered through consciousness. There are some wonderful theories that consciousness is the basis of reality.
Frankly, we believe that yes simulation theory will inevitably lead to a consciousness-first ontology, or, probably better said, it will be among the major interpretative camps in the discourse---that's actually kinda why we do what we do 👍
so it's descartes' demon again?
Descartes demon doesnt really have a purpose, whereas if you read the simulation literature, various purposes are proposed as well as a coherent structure to the framework. Descartes provides a platform, but the simulation theory literature is far more robust than just his thought experiment. Simulism is that elaborated with a goals, structures, pressure points, etc.
It's funny that many physicists refute the simulation theory with the argument of not having enough computing power (ignoring all the mentioned optimizations, omissions and compression possibilities plus ignoring the question if the computer has to be based in physical hardware).
But then physics entertained the idea of a Multiverse for such a long time, where every every split second every single quantum level difference would result in a split into nearly two identical full universes. Where is all that gigantic amount of physical matter and energy supposed to come from?
We allegedly can't even compute it, but we can generate it by a factor somewhere in the gazillion area? Makes total sense.
The multiverse cost has always been baffling to me. Once David Chartrand wrote it out for me in math, which is a simple couple of equations, and I could finally understand WHY the idea is even on the table---Even still, logically that cost is so great that it makes everything feel meaningless. A terrific irony if there ever were one.
Yes, it's a desperate attempt at explaining the uncertainty on a quantum level with math equations. But Occam's Razor should have put an immediate end to this idea.
Explaining the origin of our universe as a grand cosmic accident is already a bit sketchy (hence the famous quote "Modern science is based on the principle: ‘Give us one free miracle and we’ll explain the rest'"), but now postulating a basically infinite amount of mass springing into existence every split second is simply ridiculous.
People like to ask "What powers the simulation", but nobody seems to ask "What powers or creates this infinite production of more and more physical universes with all the mass in them"?
Is there a single woman who have given birth that believe in the SH?
I personally know HUNDREDS. Not kidding, but yes, believe it or not, they do exist.