Here's a problem with the article:
Quote:
Seth Lloyd, a quantum-mechanical engineer at MIT, estimated the number of “computer operations” our universe has performed since the Big Bang — basically, every event that has ever happened. To repeat them, and generate a perfect facsimile of reality down to the last atom, would take more energy than the universe has.
"The computer would have to be bigger than the universe, and time would tick more slowly in the program than in reality,” says Lloyd. “So why even bother building it?”
Because whoever built it isn't actually part of this universe, by definition? I mean, I don't know the context in which Seth Lloyd said that. Most likely, he was talking about us simulating our own universe, not someone else simulating us. However, the rest of the article is based on this premise, assuming that if we are in a simulation, it must be imperfect.
On a less serious note, reading this reminded me of this Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy quote:
Quote:
There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
There is another theory which states that this has already happened.
I mean, if we ever figure out that we are in a simulation, would the programmers really allow the simulation to continue, or would they just consider the whole thing a failure and start over?