Put another way...

A system of a given size and complexity cannot contain a system of equal size and complexity.

Therefore the universe in which this simulation is running must be larger and/or more complex than the universe that is being simulated.

Therefore we have no way of saying one way or another what is likely in whatever kind of outside universe might possibly create a universe like the one we observe. So to say something is more or less likely is pure speculation ab nihilo. So why bother?

This seems to hang on whether it's possible to simulate a universe to the same detail that we observe (or think we are observing), and whether the universe is long-lived enough for such sophisticated simulations to be built and run for long enough to simulate what we observe.

I don't think our universe qualifies for such.

But if we are in a simulation, then we know nothing about the real universe. All bets are off. So it's pure speculation to say that such a simulation is possible in whatever the real universe is. If we are in a simulation, then yes it is possible. If we are not, then this notional "real" universe that we are being simulated in does not exist.

So, it's pure guesswork and speculation with no hope of ever giving an answer. Therefore to say it is likely is pure nonsense. NdGT is brilliant, and I respect him hugely, but on this one I think he's let his mouth flap without properly engaging his brain.

So are you allowed to wear a merkin?

If judging was easy, anyone could be a judge. It's difficult, so we have specialists who are qualified to do it. That's what this judge did. He judged.

A lecturer was saying, "...and in about a billion years, the sun will expand and engulf the Earth..." when a student stood up and raised his hand. "Excuse me sir, what did you just say?" The lecturer repeated, "about a billion years." "Phew", said the student, sitting down, "I thought you said million."

We should switch over to skipping one leap day every 128 years, which is much closer to fixing the discrepancy than the not-by-100-unless-by-400 rule.

Ah, the "No True Scotsman" argument.

Absolutely. If Apple can modify a device in order to help crack the encryption, then anyone with the right knowledge can do it,and so those measures that they are being asked to circumvent are, in the long run, of no value.

It's news that is relevant to nerds, and it is stuff that matters, regardless of which side of the debate you sit.

And they probably believe/deny* AGW. *Delete as appropriate.

Also, beta carotine is converted into Vitamin A which is good for eye health... ;)

Urban legends are very different from conspiracies. There may be certain similarities in how you go about dislodging them from people's minds, and that tendency may also affect the probability of a conspiracy being busted by a single leak.

http://daraint.org/climate-vul... Listing the extra lives lost who would not have died without climate change is, of course, impossible.

I'm just correcting the AC on what THC and CBD mean. I'm realy not commenting on the issue.

Cannabidiol (CBD) and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) are different thngs. THC is psychoactive, CBD is not.