I think is a very rational take indeed, and while it means that the simulated nature of our universe cannot be disproven (nor proven), it does mean that we cannot simulate a universe like ours.

But the simulation theory does rely on the reasoning that there is a (possibly infinite) chain of simulated universes in order to argue that it is more likely that our universe is simulated than not. But if we cannot simulate a universe like ours, it also becomes pure conjecture to suggest another universe can, and therefore the chain is broken.

In fact, the universe “above us” would need to have mathematical rules that are beyond what we know to be true. At that point, even the discussion of determinism vs nondeterminism goes out the window, because our understanding of truth would no longer apply. But calling the/a/any universe a simulation implies knowledge of determinism, otherwise it no longer fits our understanding of algorithm. So if you believe the universe is a simulation, you may as well say that you believe in spirituality (not the hand-wavy non-scientific kind, but the kind that acknowledges an understanding that is at a higher level than ours). I think it’s hard to argue against a higher-level understanding beyond ours. But calling it a simulation has implications that don’t seem to hold. So maybe calling it spirituality is actually the fairer description.

I addressed this in the post, but basically, it’s not that clear cut.

This is effectively Spinoza’s argument indeed, which relies on nature / the universe to be fully deterministic. As I mentioned in the post, I don’t agree with determinism though. Science doesn’t either, because as we know from quantum mechanics, reality is probabilistic rather than deterministic. So saying that everything can be determined from previous states is an assumption that is not supported by science.

I think William of Ockham has a thing or two to say about that, but there’s no arguing with the reasoning! 😆

I wonder what you think of this news: https://phys.org/news/2025-10-mathematical-proof-debunks-idea-universe.html

It seems the nature of the universe is proven to be based on a non-algorithmic understanding of reality. Now intuitively that makes me think this also eliminates a pure materialistic view of reality, because if it were purely materialistic, that should theoretically be able to be modelled by an algorithm. But I wonder if I’m skipping a step in that case…

Thanks, I hadn't heard of it yet, but it sounds like a sensible starting point at least! I have some reading to do :)

While I think you make some fair points, I also don't hear an argument against the belief in free will :)

For what it's worth, my argument was never that free will must be true, so I didn't fall for the argument from consequence fallacy. I merely said it's better that we should believe in it for our own good. There's a recognition of the limits of the argument in there.

But even though we recognise such limits exist, doesn't mean we should come to the conclusion that free will itself doesn't exist. I'm also not limiting my argument to rational ones, as I cite several empirical studies that also conclude that a belief in free will is better for us.

So yeah, it's fair to point out some limitations, but I wouldn't say that any of these arguments are divine or beyond examination. Please do examine them! But until there is a convincing argument against the belief in free will (rational or otherwise), I'll stick with my conviction that believing in it is indeed better for us.

Well, consciousness was indeed out of scope for this post, but I will cover it in future posts. Spoiler alert: I do believe in a non-materialistic reality.

Yes, I was trying to draw the analogy, but I agree it wouldn't be an active agent at least.

But bringing back to where we came from: The problematic part to me is still whether a deterministic universe is compatible with free will. I mean, I don't think they're compatible, but you said it depends on whether an omniscient agent exists. I still don't see how that follows. If the omniscient agent exists, and it is indeed an active agent, then by definition the universe wouldn't be deterministic, no?

Ah yes, I agree that's a fair way to look at it. I think if you combine that reasoning with the idea of a deterministic universe, then you also basically arrive at Spinoza's view where it is said that God is Nature, because effectively Nature then is the constraining agent.

But it does still lead me to question the sentence you posited at the start:

Whether that’s compatible with a deterministic universe then depends on whether there’s an omniscient agent in your environment.

If such a constraining agent does not exist, doesn't that imply that the universe is not deterministic? Unless you also believe that free will can exist in our mind without the ability to act upon the universe. This too was argued by Spinoza, though personally I never found such an argument to be convincing.

Nah, it's not required. Certainly I wouldn't force it upon you :) But I strongly believe it's better for you if you do.

I can agree with the first sentence to some extent, but I think the "in your environment" is unnecessary, whereas you seem to need the "in your environment" qualifier to arrive at the conclusion of the second sentence? Why would it be more intuitive to argue about free will not from my perspective, but rather from the perspective of my environment? I am me, and my ability defines me. My environment may influence me, but it would be backwards to make my ability determined by what the environment can predict about me.

I suppose you do believe in a deterministic universe? If so, that could at least explain why you think such a reasoning is more intuitive, but it doesn't align with my intuition at least.