See, I'm with you in the primary portion of this statement- if we're in a simulation, it doesn't make us any less 'real' - it doesn't matter whether I'm made of atoms or the stray thoughts of a passing horsefly. It is nevertheless important and interesting to know what the underlying medium in which I exist is, especially because there's no especially compelling reason why many kinds of simulated being could not create effects outside of their simulating media, like a bit of malware breaking out of a sandboxes virtual machine.

Knowing what kind of simulation we're taking part in, assuming such knowledge is possible and processable in the simulated world, that's incredibly important and interesting knowledge! :)

> like a bit of malware breaking out of a sandboxes virtual machine

Since you're trying to demonstrate the impossibility of the situation, I think the analogy you're looking for is ransomware breaking out of your computer and kidnapping you.

The data/code/simulation can't suddenly escape the sandbox and materialize into whatever the "reality" is made of. For that reason, it is trivial if we are in a simulation.

>The data/code/simulation can't suddenly escape the sandbox and materialize into whatever the "reality" is made of. For that reason, it is trivial if we are in a simulation.

3D Printer owners would disagree with you.

But that requires there to be 3D printers in place; designed, manufactured and connected to the universe simulator, by whomever it is that created this infrastructure, with the intention of allowing "real" objects to be created from within the simulator and provided (in a way) a public API for it.

There is also the fact that we can't use 3D printers to create "perfect" or generic objects.

Oh now, what nonsense. We're not talking about spontaneously manifesting outside of the "sandbox," we're talking about simulated objects/intelligences comprehending the medium in which they are simulated and then learning to create effects in that medium as if they were working from the outside in.

For example, if you were simulated as a series of electrical signals in a computer, and if you were simulated as having some decision-making capacity, you could decide to take certain actions inside he simulation that might, for example, contextually outside the simulation, change one electrical signal from 'on' to 'off'. Like, "this is the 0 1 switch that represents the aliveness/deadness of SpriteActor32605." If you knew you were in a simulation of this type and you learned how to locate memory addresses, you might be able to execute a rowhammer attack, for example, and gain some sort of user access and more straightforward method to interact with the signals out of which you were made.

I'm not indicating that it would be easy or even that it would be necessarily useful, but particularly if there isn't someone 'monitoring' the simulation (as in, the simulation is the result of randomness and there's nobody trying to eliminate unexpected behavior from the simulated beings), there's every reason to imagine that we could begin to understand and learn to manipulate the medium out of which we were made.

If, you know, we are actually in a simulation and dependent on outside information for continued existence. Which is not settled at all, merely proposed as an explanation for some of the peculiarities we note here.

apparently computers spring up from nothing into miraculous existence quite often

Abiogenesis, the existence of physics, every "discovery" that results in new-found understanding of what is, the universe itself.. life is a boltzmann brain, physics is a boltzmann brain, discoveries are boltzmann brains, the universe itself, a boltzmann brain?

>a computer no one actually built but just fluctuated into existence

It's reasonable to argue that all computers are these kinds of computers.

It seems to happen quiet often, that people invent things that are turing complete, without even trying.

That's not the kind of simulation being discussed. "Simulation" means an intentionally constructed simulation of the universe. Random fluctuations don't count:

http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

The simulation argument helps us to understand conservation principles and hard limits. Most notably the speed of light.