Is / are our universe(s) a simulation?

[Piglet_Phoenix]

I think, 6EQ, you have to provide an alternate explanation of wave/particle duality if you wish to refute the simulation hypothesis.

It's not enough to say "it could be the reason, but I don't think it is". You've strayed away from a logical line of thought, backed up by evidence, and taken a view which is purely one of faith and belief. You can't criticise things for being "not science" after presenting an argument yourself which isn't scientific.

It doesn't follow there would be more examples, the quantum evidence is fundamental to everything (all observable reality), how could you possibly have a larger smoking gun?

Anyway, I look forward to your alternate explanation.

[6EQUJ5]

"You've strayed away from a logical line of thought, backed up by evidence, and taken a view which is purely one of faith and belief".

Neither of us has an explanation for the wave / particle result. You ascribe it to us being in a simulation and press me to provide proof to the contrary. I do not believe that it is the case that you have provided anything remotely resembling proof that this result indicates that we are in a simulation. You have merely stated the exotic belief and stated that I should provide proof that it is not so. I am choosing the default plain ordinary doubt versus your belief in the exotic. The burden of proof is on the believer in the exotic. There is no such proof. There could be numerous explanations for the wave / particle result and we do not yet know them or indeed one explanation and we do not know it.

I feel that you believe the same as me but you see it as a challenge to put the exotic case. I do appreciate your interesting theory.

This is an enthralling topic but we have reached an impasse. Gainsaying each other would not be productive. We understand each other.

[Piglet_Phoenix]

No. You're disappointing me.

I did not ask you for proof simulation theory was not evidenced by wave/particle duality.

I asked you to provide an alternate explanation.

You can't say "neither of us have an explanation for the wave/particle result" when I've provided an explanation already (which you admit you are unable to disprove).

I have not reached any impasse and am freely able to provide other explanations. Is it possible you, on the other hand, have reached the limit of your programming as an artificial construct and are unable to compute any further?