Really a better title for this article would be "Simulation backs up theory that universe is a simulation". I find them very curious, the "TheUniverseIsAComput

Really a better title for this article would be "Simulation backs up theory that universe is a simulation". I find them very curious, the "TheUniverseIsAComputer" people. Suppose there is an experiment proving that the Universe is indeed a particle simulation whose discoverable elements are being actuated by unspecified interactions of presumably very different elements in some other, underlying "universe", say a substrate of Rule 110, and consciousness can be marked out as a computable pattern in such, and that the simulation process works well enough for a group of researchers (presumably "us") to feel as if "we" are really here. Okay great. But for this to qualify as a simulation, surely the experiment (and the conscious experimenters) would have to be reproduced exactly, right down to the consciousnesses apprehending the results that establish scientific consensus that the UniverseIsAComputer, in precisely the consciousness-simulating way that these people fantasize about? We are to understand that the scientists in the "real" universe presumably would not reach the same consensus, because theirs is the actually Real Universe, not the simulated one, and so the Reality Detection Experiment fails in some way. So if this alleged difference appears---then why does the "simulation" even qualify as a simulation? For that matter, why does the author's own computer simulation qualify as having something to say about the real Universe? I suppose the simulation is "good enough" for consciousness to be reproduced more or less exactly, except for just recently the aspect of scientists becoming conscious of the fact that TheUniverseIsASimulation. I guess I could accept that everything is perfectly simulated except for... the evidence for the simulation? Meh.