[Strilanc]

I hope Scott Aaronson blogs about this article, because it espouses several of the wrong-facts he complains about and then cites him.

- Limitations on computers within physics are not limitations on physics itself. Analogously, you can simulate system so simple that a computer can't be made in them without your computer unmaking itself. Relevant: xkcd.com/505

- We do understand why we don't observe superpositions. It all comes down to this thing we call "quantum mechanics", which precisely describes those sorts of situations.

- The article consistently mixes up NP-Hard and NP-Complete.

> "And how does the universe decide whether a system is going to be quantum or not?"

Seriously, is this article a satire?

[PeterisP]

An interesting point is that limitations on math (i.e., things that would be true regardless of the details of the physical world) would put limitations on any physics simulations - including hypothetical physics simulations done by someone outside of our universe with potentially different physical limitations.

So the point of the article is something like - if phenomenon-X can't be simulated by anyone, no matter how good their computers become; and if our universe is a simulation (which is a possibility), then our universe won't contain phenomenon-X.

[TheLoneWolfling]

The problem is that there is no proof that there is any such thing as something that would be true regardless of the details of the physical world.