Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8622674" data-attributes="member: 71699">Hmm... for me, as I'm thinking about the imagined inhabitants, laws is right. In the sense of laws of nature, laws of physics, and so on.For me, it's valuable to have in mind the perfect simulation, because the games we call simulationist are believed to be imperfect simulations or approximations (as you explain above). That forces reflection on the matter of degrees of granularity: all are imperfect, none have 1:1 fidelity to the reference cosmos*. [EDIT When it comes to what they dictate, none are comprehensive and all are representative.] We can only be placing games and their mechanics along a scale, where none are perfect. That doesn't make all games and mechanics necessarily simulationist, but it does mean we can't exclude on grounds of being approximate or representative.Laws in turn provide me with a wonderful filter for simulationist mechanics. I can ask - could the imagined inhabitants of the cosmos have experiences, expectations and behaviours that are compatible with the mechanics? If not, then my supposedly simulationist mechanic deserves further scrutiny... perhaps rejection. You have other lenses and from what you write it sounds like you are satisfied with the job they are doing.*I'm divided on using "cosmos" because when I discuss an individual mechanic as simulationist I'm often not discussing the whole cosmos, but only one aspect of it. I feel drawn to parsimonious language in this respect, hence "reference".</blockquote>

Verification