There’s no direct, testable evidence that any glitches, anomalies, or limitations exist in the laws of physics that would point to an underlying simulation. All our observations, from quantum mechanics to general relativity, follow consistent, predictable laws without any clear signs of artificial constraints.
Discussion
For any claim to be scientifically useful, it must be falsifiable—that is, there must be a way to test it and potentially prove it false. The simulation hypothesis is extremely hard to test because any experiment designed to reveal a “simulation” could itself be part of the simulated framework. Without a clear experimental protocol, the hypothesis remains in the realm of philosophy rather than established science.
Occam’s Razor
This principle suggests that, all else being equal, simpler explanations are preferable. Our current understanding of the universe explains observed phenomena without invoking a simulation. Until compelling evidence forces us to adopt a more complex model, the “real universe” explanation is more parsimonious.
The big questions are, simulation of what? How would you know a real or artificial constraint?
What is clear is that where we are is a created environment and also that it isn't the prime mover.
Great point
General and Quantum can't be squared though🤷🏻♂️. Even so, it's all about ORCH-OR. Perspective/consciousness.