No, we can’t prove we’re in a simulation or outside of it. We can prove that we can’t currently create such a simulation but that doesn’t change anything.
After re-evaluation, you’re right. We can’t. We could just define the outer walls of what we can know. No matter how hard we’d think out of the box, we can’t measure the box itself.
We could create such a simulation. But being more limited beings than our creators, our creations could only be even more limited. Like an LLM. It could asses everything there is to know and calculate a theory around it. Yet it will be confined to OUR specifications and the data we let it consume.
No, we can’t prove we’re in a simulation or outside of it. We can prove that we can’t currently create such a simulation but that doesn’t change anything.
After re-evaluation, you’re right. We can’t. We could just define the outer walls of what we can know. No matter how hard we’d think out of the box, we can’t measure the box itself. We could create such a simulation. But being more limited beings than our creators, our creations could only be even more limited. Like an LLM. It could asses everything there is to know and calculate a theory around it. Yet it will be confined to OUR specifications and the data we let it consume.
Isn’t the point slightly different. We can’t prove we are in a simulation, but that doesn’t mean we are not in one.
We can’t prove a lot of things, like:
And I could go more and more absurd. Undisprovable claims are boring points of discussion because there are only beliefs, no hard facts.
With Math, proving that something doesn’t have a proof is a big deal.