The point of the eclipses and Antikythera mechanism is that similar to how “things alive to see a thing” can be used to explain otherwise rare features that “things being alive to see” depends on, that “things which contribute to simulation” renders those things expected within a simulation.
So while it’s an otherwise rare detail that standing on our planet’s surface the moon creates perfect eclipses, within a simulation this should not be regarded as all that unusual given its partial load-bearing effects on that dependency chain.
This doesn’t mean that eclipses prove we are in a simulation, but it addresses the idea that “but the world looks like it could produce the simulations and tech we are currently producing all on its own” isn’t all that significant. Yes, we should expect a simulation to carry forward features that contributed to the parent’s developing simulations into the child worlds.
As for games mechanics vs physics mechanics, it’s not a static field. Things have advanced a lot from Minecraft. For example, you might find it interesting to look more into how Epic is trying to solve massive multiplayer worlds by building from the bottom up around relative frames with transactional mechanics built into the programming language and lazy loaded assets based on what any given relative frame needs built even into their VC. Also, transformers and how superimposed probabilities of state collapse into specific values might also be relevant as a post-2009 consideration.
And yes, in terms of the physics, we have two major theories that are famously not very compatible. One at macro scales that models things as if continuous, the other at micro scales that has some curious behaviors with state management.
Hypothetically, what are the constraints that a continuous universe with access to real computing might face with self-simulation? Would there be a meaningful difference if run as a truly continuous substrate vs run as a discrete substrate that mostly behaved as if continuous outside very small scales?
The point of the eclipses and Antikythera mechanism is that similar to how “things alive to see a thing” can be used to explain otherwise rare features that “things being alive to see” depends on, that “things which contribute to simulation” renders those things expected within a simulation.
So while it’s an otherwise rare detail that standing on our planet’s surface the moon creates perfect eclipses, within a simulation this should not be regarded as all that unusual given its partial load-bearing effects on that dependency chain.
This doesn’t mean that eclipses prove we are in a simulation, but it addresses the idea that “but the world looks like it could produce the simulations and tech we are currently producing all on its own” isn’t all that significant. Yes, we should expect a simulation to carry forward features that contributed to the parent’s developing simulations into the child worlds.
As for games mechanics vs physics mechanics, it’s not a static field. Things have advanced a lot from Minecraft. For example, you might find it interesting to look more into how Epic is trying to solve massive multiplayer worlds by building from the bottom up around relative frames with transactional mechanics built into the programming language and lazy loaded assets based on what any given relative frame needs built even into their VC. Also, transformers and how superimposed probabilities of state collapse into specific values might also be relevant as a post-2009 consideration.
And yes, in terms of the physics, we have two major theories that are famously not very compatible. One at macro scales that models things as if continuous, the other at micro scales that has some curious behaviors with state management.
Hypothetically, what are the constraints that a continuous universe with access to real computing might face with self-simulation? Would there be a meaningful difference if run as a truly continuous substrate vs run as a discrete substrate that mostly behaved as if continuous outside very small scales?