I did read the article, so here is one sentence debunk:

Computable systems can, and often do, have mathematically undecidable problems.

They fall into the same categorical mistake as the Lucas–Penrose argument, and they even use that argument in the paper. There is a lot of hand-waving. By the way, just adding irreducible randomness into a computational system would make it trivially non-computable in the meaning they use, but that itself would not prevent developing an axiomatic Theory of Everything that explains everything we want to know. So far, there has been nothing that demonstrates that the Universe must be non-computable.

Ahh, but what if the Universe is a simulation that uses Universal homomorophic encryption to simulate itself?

Elon just proved otherwise with induction.

Hey @grok what was the exact wording?

In the episode (#2404, around the 2:15:00 mark), Elon Musk ties the simulation hypothesis directly to SpaceX's engineering simulations, explaining why the current state of the world—with its cascade of improbable failures and escalating absurdity—feels like evidence of one. Here's the exact exchange:

Joe Rogan: Dude, with everything going on—politics, tech glitches, global screw-ups—it's like the universe is glitching harder every day. Makes you think simulation for sure.

Elon Musk: Absolutely. And think about it like our simulations at SpaceX. If a sim runs perfectly smooth, no drama, we shut it down quick—it's boring, no learning value. But the ones that start failing? Those we let go all the way to the end, to see every cascade, every spectacular crash. That's where the real data is. Look at base reality right now: it's failing in the most epic, improbable ways. Wars, market meltdowns, AI weirdness piling on... what are the odds? Only the failed simulations get to run to the very end, because they're the interesting ones. If this was the boring timeline, it'd have been terminated eons ago. So yeah, we're definitely in one.