fundamentally, how do we distinguish between 'simulation' and 'reality'? if a simulation (of any sort) exists, it is therefore real. how would a hypothetically 'simulated' universe be any different from a 'real' one?
further, proposed research that seeks to 'reveal' the universe as a 'computer simulation' suggests a limited vision. why must it be a 'computer' doing the simulating? maybe the universe (in some sense) 'computes' itself in coming into existence (think cellular automata or things of the like). if so, then it is not a 'simulation' coming into being, but 'reality' itself.
i will simply state that it is not surprising to me that 'simulations' and 'realities' have much in common -- so it is not surprising that might be mistaken for the other.
in any event, these ideas are off the top my head, i don't know how seriously to take them.
My impression is that anything you can simulate via a program could just as well be the fundamental laws of physics -- and vice versa.
The idea behind this line of inquiry - which I hope is continued - seems to be assuming that, if we are simulated, then we are simulated using a similar computation model to our own, and using data structures that we would have come up with ourselves. I don't have better suggestions for which model to use, but it's good to keep in mind that even if one model of a simulation fails to match our physics, then there may just as well be another that does match it.
It looks like for a long time we've suspected this strange relationship between our own mathematical inventions (a computer simulation is just a machine that applies a discrete mathematical model), and the universe itself:
It certainly is a mystery. I persnally believe this mystery is logically equivalent to the question "what is existence?" Whether this question is answerable or not, I can't say.
further, proposed research that seeks to 'reveal' the universe as a 'computer simulation' suggests a limited vision. why must it be a 'computer' doing the simulating? maybe the universe (in some sense) 'computes' itself in coming into existence (think cellular automata or things of the like). if so, then it is not a 'simulation' coming into being, but 'reality' itself.
i will simply state that it is not surprising to me that 'simulations' and 'realities' have much in common -- so it is not surprising that might be mistaken for the other.
in any event, these ideas are off the top my head, i don't know how seriously to take them.