Sadly, this headline comes from a reputable academic university, but it's 100% wrong. There is no theory.
True scientists will recall that a theory is established when there is really solid evidence for things, and theories are falsifiable. A theory is stronger than a hypothesis. Scientists will always [well, almost always, except at the University of Portsmouth, apparently] be very careful before applying the term "theory", because it is the strongest form of scientific belief possible.
The idea that "we live in a simulation" can charitably be called a hypothesis, but never a theory. Here are some other choice words to describe it:
The hypothesis has received criticism from some physicists, such as Sabine Hossenfelder, who considers that it is physically impossible to simulate the universe without producing measurable inconsistencies, and called it pseudoscience and religion.[24] Cosmologist George F. R. Ellis, who stated that "[the hypothesis] is totally impracticable from a technical viewpoint", and that "late-night pub discussion is not a viable theory".[25][26] Some scholars categorically reject—or are uninterested in—anthropic reasoning, dismissing it as "merely philosophical", unfalsifiable, or inherently unscientific.[21]
actionfromafar•9mo ago
For some reason this idea of connecting gravity, compression and computing effort scares me a little.
AStonesThrow•9mo ago
True scientists will recall that a theory is established when there is really solid evidence for things, and theories are falsifiable. A theory is stronger than a hypothesis. Scientists will always [well, almost always, except at the University of Portsmouth, apparently] be very careful before applying the term "theory", because it is the strongest form of scientific belief possible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis
The idea that "we live in a simulation" can charitably be called a hypothesis, but never a theory. Here are some other choice words to describe it:
The hypothesis has received criticism from some physicists, such as Sabine Hossenfelder, who considers that it is physically impossible to simulate the universe without producing measurable inconsistencies, and called it pseudoscience and religion.[24] Cosmologist George F. R. Ellis, who stated that "[the hypothesis] is totally impracticable from a technical viewpoint", and that "late-night pub discussion is not a viable theory".[25][26] Some scholars categorically reject—or are uninterested in—anthropic reasoning, dismissing it as "merely philosophical", unfalsifiable, or inherently unscientific.[21]