excreationist said:
Do you think it is reasonable to assume that the processes running our simulation involve causality? In order to have causality, one event must come before another event. I'd say that there is a limit to how small delays in time can be. Or do you think there could be no limit to how tiny a period of time can be? If there is a limit then there is a limit to how fast a simulation can run. There would be a difference between a bottom-up simulation and a top-down simulation that could run a googol times faster. Do you think that the space inside an outer world has to have a limit to how small a distance can be? If time and space have no minimum size then I think the paradox of Achilles and the tortoise applies.
It really puzzles me that you would ask me this question.
As I've indicated already, the answer is no. We cannot make any assumptions about what an outer world may be like. Here's an analogy that may help you understand what I've been saying.
Let's say Pac Man was questioning whether he was in a simulation. He might wonder things like, "what color ghosts chase the beings in the outer world?", "how many continues do the beings in the outer world have?", "how far do beings in the outer world have to travel before they warp back around to the other side of the screen?", "how many levels are there?", "how many points are cherries worth?", "what is the high score?", etc.
Of course, there are no ghosts chasing us in our world, nobody has any continues, we do not move on screens which warp back around when we reach the edge, there are no levels, there are no points earned by eating fruit and there is no high score.
Nothing in Pac Man's world necessarily tells him anything about our world. Similarly, if we were in a simulation, there are no observations that we could make that would necessarily tell us anything about the outside world.
Causality, time, anything and everything we think we perceive, could just be part of a simulation with no real correlate in an outside world and there is no way of knowing.
excreationist said:
We can know what we seem to be perceiving... this quote is somewhat relevant... (though I'm not that detached lately)
https://www.lifesplayer.com/happiness.php
"....The screen may be projecting a horrendous movie that is showing all kinds of pain and suffering - on the screen. Or the screen may reflect a happy movie that shows a beautiful sunset, a delightful sexual experience, or an enjoyable meal. But the essential you is the pure awareness that just watches the stuff go by on the screen of your life...."
If we reject the notion that we might be in a simulation, sure, we can know
something. But, if we don't reject that notion, then we have to admit that anything we think we know or perceive is possibly a total deception or delusion; we could know
nothing.