Yes - this is a
or a tongue in cheek sort of thread. I think you work somewhat in this arena don't you? (particle accelerator isn't it?) Are any of your co-workers or scientists talking about any of this?
I got the humor! I was trying to inject a little of my own.
And, no, the funny thing is that only lay-people (if you will excuse the term) and the physicists directly involved seemed to talk much about this stuff. For myself, I think the reason why is that the physicists understand that to really talk about it they have to know the mathematical foundation and experimental setups that gathered the data that suggested the math, in order to really talk about it (such as string theory, for example).
What I can tell you is that there is a
LOT of interpretation going on to go from the data to a statement like "the universe looks like it's a giant computer simlulation".
Don't put too much faith in that notion.
For myself, I think it's more generally accurate to say that
most particle physicists would agree with the statement that "the universe is
a lot more like a giant thought, than a giant machine." (But really, it is neither--note the "more like" bit--i.e. only an analogy.)
It's very, VERY difficult to carry significance from one realm (particle physics) to another (ontology, for example). Metaphors must be used, and well, they are metaphors. The word "metaphor" comes from the greek words for carry (like as in pheremones--same root) and between (as in metastasis, for example). In other words, it's a lot more like poetry than science. Which is fine, just so long as you keep in mind that poetry is largely subjective, even the scientific variety.
There goes reality.
