I see where you’re coming from—when we run simulations ourselves, there are always limitations. We cut corners, leave out small variables, and deal with chaos over time. So yeah, it makes sense to say that if you’re simulating something like weather or planetary systems, even small omissions can spiral out and cause major errors. But I think the Simulation Hypothesis is talking about something a bit different.
It’s not saying that we are running a simulation and trying to model our own universe. It’s saying that we might be the simulation. That changes the rules. If the entire universe—including our minds, perceptions, and senses—is being generated by some underlying system, then the usual problems we run into when simulating things wouldn’t necessarily apply. We wouldn’t be dealing with errors or missing terms, because everything we experience would be part of how that system is designed to work.
Think about it like this: when we do simulations, we’re guessing at reality from the outside. But if reality itself is the simulation, then there’s no “outside” for us to compare it to. What we see and experience would just be reality for us, whether it’s built from a perfect set of rules or not. We wouldn’t know the difference, because all of our senses, thoughts, and science are operating inside that framework.
So yeah, our own simulations fall apart if you run them long enough or leave out too many variables. But that doesn’t mean reality can’t be simulated—it just means we can’t simulate it very well. If some advanced system is running the whole show, it might not have those same problems.
That’s why I think using the flaws in our own simulations as proof against the Simulation Hypothesis is a bit like comparing a cardboard cutout to a living person. Just because we can’t build something perfect doesn’t mean something perfect can’t exist.