Are you saying that the more complicated things are, the more it hints at a simulation?
Here, let me ask the most important question: What evidence about how things work on earth would make you less likely to believe the world is a simulation? Because it's always possible to come up with a justification after seeing evidence.
Speaking for myself, I can not imagine what evidence would disprove the Simulation hypothesis.
At the moment, reality is indistinguishable from being "real", for appropriate values of "real". There are things that would increase the likelihood of us being in a simulation, like us finding a QM effect of some sort where we can prove that what's actually happening is a computationally tractable simplification of what the theory presents. Instead, in the real world, every torture case we put QM to, QM keeps on QM'in just fine, regardless of what our intuitions think.
So I would say that for me, the simulation hypothesis is more-or-less as improbable as it can get. However, that isn't zero, and I can't see how it would ever be zero, and I have to admit that the "not zero" in question is not merely a pro forma "not zero, but 10^-huge number", but some sort of non-trivial "not zero". No idea how to put a precise number on it, though.
(As Scott Aaronson has said, one interesting reason to pursue quantum computers is that they are the things that will allow us to run experiments to see if reality does perhaps give up after a certain amount of entanglement and turn the system classical again despite there being no QM reason to do so. It's probably not the best reason to do it, but it is a reason to do it. If quantum computers turn out to be truly impossible, and not just an extremely hard engineering challenge, the reasons why can't help but teach us something profound about the universe.)
> Speaking for myself, I can not imagine what evidence would disprove the Simulation hypothesis.
I'm not talking about absolute proof.
I'm saying that for a claim that evidence makes it "more likely", you can't just come up with a plausible reason. You have to weigh plausible reasons for and against it.
For every "more likely", there has to be a corresponding "less likely".
I can come up with plausible reasons that "less complex world" implies simulation, and I can come up with plausible reasons that "more complex world" implies simulation.
But unless I'm using conspiracy theorist logic, I have to weigh those against each other, and say that one of those pieces of evidence would overall make me less likely to believe in a simulation.
>Are you saying that the more complicated things are, the more it hints at a simulation?
No, I'm saying that the fact that we can see down to a subatomic level which adds considerable complexity to a hypothetical simulation is not evidence that it is impossible that we live in a simulation.
If you tried to describe a 2018 smartphone to Konrad Zuse in 1936 he'd have thought you were either quite mad or a science fiction author. To him it would almost certainly be unfathomable as reality, even with him knowing that he created the first programmable computer. Hell, if you actually showed an iPhone to most of us in the 70's, 80's, or early 90's we'd likely have had a rough time processing it at first, especially if you loaded a VR game or some 4k video.
> No, I'm saying that the fact that we can see down to a subatomic level which adds considerable complexity to a hypothetical simulation is not evidence that it is impossible that we live in a simulation.
Okay, but I suggest you be a bit more careful with wording in the future. "These are both somewhat my logic" made it sound like the complexity was reinforcing the idea, rather than merely not completely disproving the idea.
With that clarified the rest of what I said is useless and a waste of both our time.
Here, let me ask the most important question: What evidence about how things work on earth would make you less likely to believe the world is a simulation? Because it's always possible to come up with a justification after seeing evidence.
(Other planets are a different issue entirely.)