I think I shall adopt a healthy attitude of skepticism towards this, especially if it is non-falsifiable - and it is.

@dglas Why would it be non-falsifiable? "Living in a simulation" doesn't necessarily imply that the simulation is perfect or undetectable.

Cool. Provide the falsifiability for the hypothesis then. What would it take to prove it wrong?

Sorry, you're right in the sense that "we live in a simulation" is not falsifiable, in the same sense that "gods exist" is not falsifiable; you can't prove the non-existence of something. But if god comes down from a mountain and tells us all to stop eating porkchop sandwiches then you can prove that statement true.

In the same sense, if we live in a simulation and it's flawed, we could conceivably detect that. Maybe conservation of mass breaks down if you put too much mass in too small an area, and the processors overload. Maybe that region of space slows down and gets out of sync with the others. Maybe there's wraparound error and mass just disappears, or maybe it saturates and you get less mass-energy out than you put in. Maybe we discover that space and particle behavior is quantized for no obvious reason on small enough scales. Maybe we discover that particles don't really exist until we observe them, and are only simulated using cheaper probability distributions otherwise. :D That kind of thing.

well, quantum mechanics behave very much like a game engine.

copenhagen interpretation jokingly says the moon would disappear if no one is looking at it. exactly as in a game world with its on-demand rendering.

schrödinger's cat neither dead nor alive? simple, just hasn't been rendered yet, until the act of observation happens. until then you best get a function pointer ;)

quantum entanglement? references to the same object in the machine's memory.

and so on.

Well, you know, it is entirely possible that (and I know this is a radical idea) we model our inventions after what we see in the world - not the other way around. Take airplanes and submarines as examples.

Many people have seen and still do see an analogy between human brains/minds and computers. Our central concept of self is our operating system. We install and uninstall software as we go along. The wetware is the hardware, etc. Usually, this is the result of staring at the Rorschach image too long. One starts to imagine things.

There are other possible reasons for seeing similarities. Maybe it's our pattern recognition bios, pareidolia version at work.

Yeah I'm aware of that. But I find it fascinating that it's the best model we have today.