How is that irrelevant? Explain, what are your arguments that the building blocks of our "reality" are irrelevant?
My argument is
not that the building blocks of our "reality" are irrelevant. My argument is that the
fact that we can't 'see' beyond a certain scale of building blocks is irrelevant..
Decoherence says what you percieve as reality is just a very very small, tiny fragment of all there is, you just don't have the apparatus to see all the states of matter/particles
Which is what I said earlier : you just need a bigger microscope!
QM tells us reality is not what we think of it.
QM tells us what reality is
at a certain scale of matter. You and I as persons and don't operate in the quantum world, we operate in the gravitational and electro-magnetic world and your mobile phone behaves perfectly predictably in this world.
If and when there is a solid unified theory of everything under which your mobile exhibits some 'odd' behaviour your argument may hold some water. Even then, chances are that your observations will be a result of some holes in our knowledge rather than evidence of living in a simulation.
There is a third theory ...Then there is a fourth theory
The theories you mention are tentative to the extreme, more of hypotheses really rather than theories.
....you will discover that there are experiments which support the proposition that entangled particles "know" each of the others is present even when the distance separating the two is further than light can travel...
which in itself violates the theory of relativity!
There is a lot to be discovered but if QM and scientists are telling us that reality is not what we think of it, why would you go head against the wall and claim they are not right?
While in the same sentence you admit that there is a lot to be discovered you still expect me to believe what they claim as 'gospel' ?!
So, as per the previous paragraph, who do I believe: Einstein and Hawking or Schrdinger and his cat ?
When we have an adequate undestanding of quantum states in order to manipulate them robustly enough to repeatably produce something tangible like, say, a quantum computer then we may start thinking about simulations. Until then your argument is more of a 'Simulation of the Gaps' proposition, IMHO.
Edited by Legend, : spelling
"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"
™ Version 4.2
