Gravity: Newton’s law of gravity works, except at high velocities. Why doesn’t it work regardless of what velocity objects are moving at? At first glance it would appear that something is screwy somewhere.
*Symmetry: Physics and symmetry go like hand in glove. When it comes to the forces of nature, things are supposed to be symmetrical with Physics respect to time (T), charge (C) and parity (P). However, there is one exception. There are CP violations noted in certain weak force decays such that one handedness is favoured over another thus breaking the symmetry.
*Unification: You’d expect that if there is just one Mother Nature that it would be relatively easy to unify the four forces into a coherent package. Alas, it’s to date proven impossible to unify gravity with the electromagnetic force, the weak nuclear force and the strong nuclear force. Thus, to date, no “Theory of Everything” (TOE).
*Matter / Antimatter: There is every reason before-the-fact to expect there to be equal amounts of both matter and antimatter (one of those expected symmetries) present and accounted for in the Universe. Alas, there is not. The lack of antimatter is the exception to that expectation.
*Dual Existence: Something cannot be in two (or more) places at the same time, except in quantum physics apparently.
So, are some or all of the above exceptions to the rule just examples of special effects brought on by computer software, software programmed by a programmer who has designed and fine-tuned our life, the Universe and everything as an example of a virtual reality landscape?
The Simulation Hypothesis and the Observer Effect.
The “Observer Effect” basically states that reality is determined by (usually) conscious entities observing said reality. So observers collapse the superposition-of-state wave function from a state of this AND that down to a state of this OR that. As Einstein famously asked, does the Moon exist if nobody is actually looking at it? So here are a few random thoughts about the “Observer Effect”.
*There’s no universal agreement on what constitutes an observer. Does it HAVE to be a consciousness entity and more to the point, a human being?
*If an observer has to be something living then there was a time when the Universe was lifeless, so then what?
*If collapse-of-the-wave-function requires an observer then what was the state-of-play before there were observers? There apparently could be no collapse-of-the-wave-function anywhere.
*You go through your daily routine and never observe that your act of observing alters the behavior of anything non-living at all.