OH THIS IS IT! The shit I was referring to with the 3rd theory. About there being some new evidence supporting the "matrix" idea. Thanks Automaton. I'v been looking for the article on this for a while.
:D yeah I thought it might have been, had to look back on my facebook for the guy that linked it to me.
The guy who wrote that article has no idea what he's talking about.
To simulate the universe with a finite amount of computational power, the laws of physics would need a bottom-limit where they stop being simulated accurately. This limit would represent space as a three-dimensional lattice, physical laws would be superimposed onto it, and reality would be simulated by the lattice moving in increments of time. What the physicists are wondering is if this limit would make the simulation appear different in any way to a "real" universe that has no bottom-limit, because if it does then that's something we could possibly observe.
It would most likely affect high energy processes which affect smaller areas of space as they become more energetic. That means a simulation would theoretically have a limit on how energetic a particle can be, since it can't affect a region of space smaller than the lattice that simulates it. The GZK limit is exactly that -- an upper limit on the energy of cosmic rays.
The idea is that if we live in a simulated universe, the direction these high-energy particles travel wouldn't be random, they would start to move closer to the lattice's axes as they approach the energy limit. So if we're ever able to actually measure their movement, it could be a theoretical method of proving we live in a simulated universe. It's a hypothesis with a huge number of assumptions that may be testable in the future, but nothing about it has anything to do with discovering evidence that we live in a simulation.
If this went over your heads, sorry. This is kind of a hard concept to simplify and I doubt I have a good enough understanding of it myself to properly explain it to someone else.
I kind of get it, might have to re-read that a few times though. I just didn't like the concept of using simulations to prove the universe is a simulation, seems like a weird kind of circular reasoning in some way, but that's probably just my uneducated mind not grasping the concept properly :')