Our universe is most likely a computer simulation

[caseymoz]

151. But, if so, it emerges from the smallest scales . . .

. . . we can detect. You might think it's as "digital as anything else," except that's not the contrast I was making. I said binary. Does it reduce down to a series of yes's and no's? No, it doesn't. You can't model quantum states with its probabilities with binary states.

Otherwise, you're also wrong about it being digital. It's not when you get to irrational numbers. You know, the ones found in such "complex" things like Pi, where the numbers are at best, frustrating approximations? We can break this down into digits, than use the derived digits for simulations, but there's that irrational element that's always going to make any simulation inaccurate down the road. Second we can only take our recording down to a certain scale, then we have to impose this on the higher scales.

The probabilistic nature at the quantum level means that the universe is inherently chaotic, and chaos is not emergent. What's emergent from chaos is order. We perceive order and chaos as being opposite, but actually, order is a subset of chaos. You only think of chaos as "emergent" because we interpreted natural law from the most ordered systems we could find. We did that by artificially simplifying many systems. In nature, they're not simple. It then took us a long time to be able to recognize those very same natural laws also lead to chaos. You're getting it backward in thinking chaos is emergent.

The probabilistic nature of the quantum level indicates that, in fact, anything underpinning the quantum level is also chaotic. Chaos isn't emergent from order. What happens is the rare occurrance of order reverts to the usual state of chaos. We can impose a binary order on a lower scale to create a certain chaotic system at a higher one, but that just shows how unstable order really is. Order is emergent from chaos. It means that a binary system is also a subset of chaos.

I don't know what you mean by "cannot be predicted except by itself." The run- through is not a prediction.

"The "IF" in the OP presumes a simulation that is not contrary to any evidence we have. I short-handed that into the internal belief we are real, but that subsumes a lack of evidence to the contrary."

To paraphrase the OP who said that simulations outnumber real universes, there are many more false statements than true ones. In an absence of evidence, you should not confuse yourself by thinking it's even likely true. Especially when you don't have a physics degree. How often can you count on being wrong betting on a horse race? No, you can't prove that a certain horse won't win. Yet, you could guess right about the nature of the whole universe? At least without studying physics for 20 years? Absence of contrary evidence is definitely not enough.

It might seem harmless, but our many religious wars show that this is sometimes not the case. People can begin to get religious about their best guesses, and it gets worse when it can't be proved.

However, it's fun anyway. I would suggest writing fiction about it. But approach it as though it's your favorite horse in a race with infinite contenders. Then, you'll be humble enough.