Interpretation a) they are not real. They are part of the game/simulation and are not real, therefore they can’t log out.
Interpretation b) they don’t have the correct command. Sometimes computer are very nitpicky on what they understand and how you have to formulate a command. But one person seems to say exactly the same as the one who logged out, so either the computer is very nitpicky on the specific timing of words, or the command is user specific.
Interpretation c) they are not allowed to do that. Like in they don’t have permission to execute the logout command, like you don’t have permission to shutdown the computer infopoint in a mall. Or think of it like the matrix, where someone doesn’t want to let you out.
Interpretation d) subconsciously they don’t want to. Imagine the command is not what you say but what you really want, so they can’t log out, because subconsciously they do not want to.
Personally I tend to interpretation a) because there is this theory that in an endless or nearly universe, it is basically given, that some species will invent a computer that is capable of simulating an universe, which in turn will have a simulation going, because the same rules apply. Now if you follow this train of thought, you will arrive at the conclusion that for every universe, if there are multiple, there is a basically endless number is simulated ones, which makes the chances that you are not part of a simulation practically zero. Yeah, so that’s that.
there is this theory that in an endless or nearly universe, it is basically given, that some species will invent a computer that is capable of simulating an universe, which in turn will have a simulation going, because the same rules apply
My main gripe with simulation theory is that this claim just seems… false.
First off, it’s not possible to create a simulation of equal complexity to the host universe, so each iteration would necessarily have to be smaller, and I would contend significantly so.
Even the wildest theoretical computers can’t even simulate Earth, much less the universe.
In our world that is the case but even in video games of today we have world building to make things more interesting like how you can shoot fireballs out of your hands while in real life you can’t the blokes simulating us probably just thought a word where you can’t have a simulation replicate itself as more interesting than their world really because we only have this plane of existence it’s hard to say what other universes would look like and thus simulation theory is more of a shower thought analyzing a question that has a sample size of 1
It just means that our universe is extremely simplified compared to our host universe.
There are a couple tricks one could use like having some parts of the simulation skip steps in less important areas, simulating different parts at different times in the host world and only syncing them back together when necessary, which would end up being invisible to those inside, as well as the simulation not running in real time, where it might be running slower or inconsistently in the host world, while inside the people see it as stable and not slow.
Not that I’m claiming it’s true; it’s simply an interesting thing to think about and ways around processing speed issues. If humanity ever makes a simulation of even a small universe, I imagine some of these tricks that are smoothed over in that universe would be used, since it can look messy from the outside but look normal on the inside.
You’re, of course, right about simulation speed not necessarily having to match host universe speed, but an issue you can run into is that your universe experiences heat death before anything interesting happens in the simulation.
I’m extremely skeptical of in-universe physics hacks not being observable. What does it mean for an area to be less important when we can look up at the sky and observe tiny little photons from the beginning of time (almost)?
If you’re dealing with a bunch of Jerrys you can step the complexity down to 5% with no noticeable effect.
I assume you’re referencing that children’s cartoon with the drunk scientist
Chances are whatever dimension is hosting our Universe server, is probably 4th or 5th dimensional.
Sorta how we can make a detailed 2D simulation like Dwarf Fortress. Our 3D universe might as well be somebody’s Super Nintendo.
Chances are that we’re not in a simulation, but you’re right that for our universe to be simulated, the host universe would need fundamentally different physics.
Even then, I feel like you’re underestimating the scale of the universe. Dwarf Fortress is laughably simple compared to a real universe. It’s a toy. You’d need something more than a couple extra dimensions for our universe to be at all comparable to that.
Yeah, this theory is not airtight even without me cutting corners in the explanation to keep it brief.
I imagine you can fix the holes with some thinking and speculation, but then again, does it really matter if you are just a “NPC” I mean for everyone else you are, but to yourself it’s only you who can answer that. I can’t look into your head and you can’t look into mine (metaphorically speaking) so we can only give each other the benefit of doubt.
I suppose our universe is a simulation it’s probably possible that the devs could see exactly what we are thinking but considering evolution it’s possible living things in general weren’t intended our universe could probably be a simple dirt simulator and some bug in the engine made it possible for a specific explosion in a specific place accidentally made these special dirts to combine and create these slime contraptions that started to make themselves more and more complex and now they are combined into rigid structures that are exploiting the light and material ripple functions to interact with one another and the devs are just watching this bug and seeing how complicated it gets Note: reading my comment back this sounds like a gag from hitch hikers guide to the galaxy
