1. what does having made a simulated universe say about the civilisation that made it? — Kaarlo Tuomi

It reflects progress and expectation. To simulate a universe in which the civilization is reflected implies uncertainty on the part of the creators. Man is looking for ways to survive, so then the simulation will reflect overlooked damaging properties. If these are identified (due to the revealing nature of complexity), updates become eventually applied, ending in absolute resolution.

What you have then is "stripped" progress during intermediate stages, and because inhabitants of the created world lag and lack details in construction policies, so do we in our knowledge. This conjures not only restriction, but also the ability to rewind. So then, when a quantum leap breaks the symmetry of progress, it would be like discovering prime numbers in nature. Usually this implodes the symmetrical decimation into natural standards which is of course impossible as we do not understand the nature of time fully.

Its easy to model singularity, but nobody in the simulation has ever actually seen it, let alone construct it in the beginning with a beginning.

the world is contingent so it's the movement of time which makes these patterns. — Gregory

I have no doubt of that. However, most things come from the future. If you reflect on things, this doesn't mean they are thought out. One can reflect and express, another can think and express. Reflection is assumed as a given plus it acquired the status of common sense. The stereotype philosopher reflects and expresses. Thank god we have forums to edit things even after some idea is expressed. But ideas are essentially good, why not? We all are subject to growth and decay, the effects of entropy. However, it's not that depressing. One only needs to know when to stop if reflecting.

Hm. How does a pattern differ from Shanon Entropy? — Banno

There's a difference, but there needs to be a type of matter condensation that signals the onset of idea. Without condensation, not much can be said.

Entropy is explained (nowadays) in terms of self-organisation. When Claude Shannon first published his paper in 1948, there wasn't much talk about complexity and chaos. Nowadays, self-organizing systems realize the importance of language into the equation. Metaphor is used to build structure (roads etc... ). It takes a specialized leap to link chaos and language (not mathematical) though. Not my department.

Truth is, i believe, to be found in language and purpose. The only caveat with purpose is that things only get organized in conjunction with other goals. This is another way of saying that man cannot act without information, unless abstract awareness 'sees' a pattern distinctively. Another result of this is lateralism.
If buildings are constructed, other things are constructed along the way, a type of disinformed reactionism. Did you ever acquire something, but had to take in 'the rest' too?

I was wondering if anyone had any arguments that patterns are objective — Gregory

Plato did. For him, these mathematical objects do exist "out there".

I'm not going to differentiate between "pattern" and "mathematical object" here as the link is obvious, but it's a subtle one. Your question can be related to the mathematical philosophy of formalism.

In my opinion, formalism struggles with object, but only in function of games. And games you play against an adversary, someone or something "out there". Intuïtionism on the other hand excludes the possibility of subjective interpretation of pattern. But for this to be valid, a mathematical object has to have consciousness, not existence. That's how the time spirit evoked "man is a number". Intuïtionism shouts: don't fight, build.

And he is a number, if people only realize the truth of microscaling religious concepts. Bringing "pattern" down into existence first passes through institution. On another level, this implies that two mathematicians are not "really" communicating their findings. Institution knows that intelligence can be reflected, so religion is dead, and unfortunately a good mathematician needs better glasses.

The best question to ask would be one that does not assume anything about existence. Perhaps the best question is the one that does not assume the need to question in the first place? — Benj96

Usually, if someone doesn't assume the need to question, the person is informed by facts.

If i'm assuming the need, then there is no question, no subjective perception but generalized castles. If on the other hand, i assume the need to question, then an answer is two steps away.

The latter paragraph implies the reputation of philosophy. A philosopher on the outset of his journey, doesn't know what a question is. If this concept is learned, the very first questions are targeted at specific perceptions, which brings us back to specifics, not to basics,

That's the irony, we can't understand the fundamentals but on the "other side" we can.