As already said
DennisN said:
Hi, the
rules of this forum is that personal theories are not allowed.
However, the way the question in the OP is worded calls for a remark.
Related to math is not a good way to see it. We use math to describe what we measure. It turned out to be the best language to do so. Theoretically there could be another way to write down physics, although it's hard to imagine one. In any case, there is a difference between the experiments and their description, the analogy between code and program goes in that direction. In general we demand a peer reviewed paper published in a well recognized journal to debate upon, for otherwise discussions tend to lose their focus. A start for more information about the idea in question could be the Wikipedia article about it -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis - and especially the references therein. It also contains a discussion about this idea and especially its connection to pop science, which we do not discuss on PF either, as it is in 99% of all cases wrong, full of bad comparisons and misconceptions, and leading in wrong directions. It would simply be needed to repeat a study of physics, to correct all the errors in such publications, and this can't be done on the Internet.
As a general remark on further posts: "
Now we all know" followed by a statement, which itself is already debatable, might be a good start in a rhetoric debate competition, however, it is not within the science community. What we all know is accepted science, mainstream if you like, but not what is written somewhere, especially if it concerns interpretations rather than facts. It is a rhetoric mean to either heat a debate or settle false assumptions - and neither is suited to earn merits in a scientific discussion.
256bits said:
Me, too.
Thread closed.