The catch here is that it may be impossible for the creators of simulations to deterministically define the rules of a simulation, especially considering the effect of time.
As an example, let's take the scenario of building a simulator. The simulation needs to have some internal state. This state will need to be stored either using some properties of matter or some kind of signal. The simulation will also need an energy source.
As soon as the stability of matter or the power supply is perturbed, due to reasons like cosmic radiation or the fact that the power source cannot sustain its output, randomness from the creator's "world" will start seeping into the simulation. The interference may affect the internal state and then you may have unpredicted rules in your simulation.
The counterpoint can be that you use error correction algorithms or you insulate the simulation in such a way that interference does not affect it for a reasonable time-frame or in a manner that is very hard to observe for simulated "agents".
But with this in mind, we can imagine some very crafty agents who somehow stumbled upon these weird phenomena. Suddenly we see our agents building complex contraptions to study the emergent phenomena. Who's to say that the interference and thus these phenomena do not contain information about their creator's world? In the end, they could understand more rules than the simulation was programmed with, if that is true.
Maybe in that case you shut down the simulation. Or maybe you observe the simulation to learn more about your own world.
As an example, let's take the scenario of building a simulator. The simulation needs to have some internal state. This state will need to be stored either using some properties of matter or some kind of signal. The simulation will also need an energy source.
As soon as the stability of matter or the power supply is perturbed, due to reasons like cosmic radiation or the fact that the power source cannot sustain its output, randomness from the creator's "world" will start seeping into the simulation. The interference may affect the internal state and then you may have unpredicted rules in your simulation.
The counterpoint can be that you use error correction algorithms or you insulate the simulation in such a way that interference does not affect it for a reasonable time-frame or in a manner that is very hard to observe for simulated "agents".
But with this in mind, we can imagine some very crafty agents who somehow stumbled upon these weird phenomena. Suddenly we see our agents building complex contraptions to study the emergent phenomena. Who's to say that the interference and thus these phenomena do not contain information about their creator's world? In the end, they could understand more rules than the simulation was programmed with, if that is true.
Maybe in that case you shut down the simulation. Or maybe you observe the simulation to learn more about your own world.