If you perfectly knew the laws of the universe and had unlimited computing power and unlimited knowledge of the exact conditions of all the matter/energy at a specific instant, then you could account for those obstacles.

Can you think that there will be an end to our understanding of our universe ? Maybe not.

I don't think so. There are two obstacles on the way. The first one is the importance of chaos....
Then the second obstacle is the quantic noise. The Heisenberg principle ....

Here you are saying that "we" cannot do these things because it is either computationally too difficult or technologically not understood how one would.

I would agree that, if we cannot do something, then it means that we are unable to do it. I do not agree that, if we cannot do something, it implies it is fundamentally un-doable.

My general point stands up, I believe. Which is this: physical systems are computational systems. The computational power necessary to compute physical systems is equivalent to the number of discrete states those systems can hold, which of course means any physical system can compute itself (this is nearly a tautology, so i apologize for that). The undefined quality of unobserved quantum systems, combined with the above points, means that the universe has computational capacity in excess of what is required to simulate the universe.

Edit: note that I am asserting the 'strong case' of this argument. A weaker and more defensible position would be, most matter inside a rock, for example, is mostly like it's neighbors. We can get very accurate approximations of the inside of a rock without storing the information about each particle part, but just a coarse-graining algorithm to assume neighbors are relatively similar.

In this weak form of the argument, the computational capacity of the universe if FAR FAR in excess of what would be required to simulate an extremely accurate approximation of the universe.

I'm not a moderator, but please, refrain from using multiple posts. You can always edit your last post.

I get the sense that your whole argument here depends on the idea that the exact properties of matter are undefined (unknown) unless observed. But I don't see what difference this makes. Doesn't the matter have exact properties that exist, and are just undefined to the observer since they are unknown to them? A piece of matter may be simultaneously in two states from a standpoint of statistical probability, and so need to be considered to have both of those states, but I know of no empirical data that suggests that it really does simultaneously have both states (though I admit that my knowledge and understanding of quantum mechanics is limited).

H2Bro, I just told you about this 3 hours ago. Do not make multiple posts. Edit your previous post if you have something to add.

It is not so much that they have both/all states simultaneously; rather there is simply no way to determine what they are outside of measurement

I think this is not a meaningful problem to know if the universe is a simulation, because we would never know it

To further warp the mind, this also means we have to either dismiss locality ("events are not influenced from outside of the light-travel-time interval") or realism ("the moon exists even when not being observed"). Either of these is rather hard to swallow.

I don't think you did....

if you want to crack down on someone trying to start a thought provoking conversation, go ahead.

Apologies beforehand for the double post, I genuinely do not see an edit option as I did before.

What I would have edited in is to make my last post a bit less arrogant. Sorry to come off that way, if I did.

I only have a problem with people who violate the forum rules...

fair enough. that red font you use is just strikes me as so accusatory and intimidating

non-locality isn't really that mind bending, only to someone who thinks GR and SR are exact specifications of reality and not mathematical approximations.

Whether this theory can go on to produce testable hypothesis is something I don't know yet.

Have you actually studied relativity?

Another important fact is to know if the universe is fundamentally discrete or continuous...