> The minimum evidence that we are in fact in a simulation would be observing a violation of physics. Not at all. A "violation of physics", by which I assume y

> The minimum evidence that we are in fact in a simulation would be observing a violation of physics. Not at all. A "violation of physics", by which I assume you mean a discrepancy between our picture of the universe and the real universe as revealed in experiment, only tells us that our model is wrong. There have been any number of "violations of physics" over the decades. We believed that a luminiferous ether served as a medium for light waves -- wrong. We believed that neutrinos didn't have mass -- wrong. We believed that all mass/energy was accounted for by the descriptions in the Standard Model -- very wrong (only 4% is so described, the rest is dark matter and dark energy, with no present explanation). The simplest explanation for these discrepancies, consistent with lex parsimoniae or "Occam's razor" is that our model isn't good enough and needs revision, not that the universe is a simulation. It's equally logical (and not very logical at all) to argue that a perfectly running universe, with no anomalies, would constitute evidence for a simulation, on the ground that any self-respecting superbeing able to craft an entire universe, would surely test his code before launching it.