A provoking question: if we found evidence that convinced us, beyond a reasonable doubt, that we were living in a computer simulation, would you change your behavior?
What 'postulates' would they be calculated from? Does it even make sense to speak of universes following different 'logics'?
> far more universes simulated that have properties that are nothing like the "real" one as technology progresses, i.e. there are more instances of "sonic the hedgehogs" and "super mario brothers 1"
Those seem like perfectly normal universes to me: they're fully describable by short programs executing over discrete binary states like a chunk of RAM. Where's the violation of logic or metaphysical oddities there?
But the 'real universe' appears discrete on the smallest level, and I don't believe physicists will ultimately settle on a theory in which two completely different sorts of theories take over at different regimes and the macro-scale theory is not reducible, even in principle, to derivations and predictions of the micro-scale theory. The quantum theories will eventually predict the relativity-scale results./
> In addition, a "video-game universe" runs on a programmatic logic with discrete conditionals rather than our universe's equations that don't branch.
How would you know? What governs quantum randomness?
Exactly the point. What game do you know of that follows the laws of logic as we know them in the 'real' universe we habitate? It follows that it's nonsensical that we can reason ourself to reality if we are a simulation.
I treat free will as an assumption:
- If we are, in fact, predestined, assuming I have free will doesn't hurt or matter.
- If we do have free will, I'm applying that free will to make decisions based on a correct assumption
- If we do have free will and I had assumed we were predestined, this could have worse results. At the very least, it is unlikely to improve outcomes
Not to mention you were predestined to assume so.