If by “virtual machine” you mean some unimaginably powerful entity running a reality simulator for “reasons”, then you’ll still have to explain how that’s any different than Intelligent Design.
Not my argument.
If a Yeti walk through the door as positive evidence of Yeti, it would support the existence of Yeti.
But if people make observations about QM that don’t support the theories of QM, that’s not positive evidence of a Creator. It doesn’t disprove it, but it doesn’t affect its unknowability. People thought Gravity was a perfectly understandable Newtonian complete system. Adjusting the theory didn’t involve adding a Creator that was messing with his code just to hide that Creator’s existence.
You can’t falsify “An unknowable creator is hiding their existence and can replicate existence and any mistakes we find point to that maker’s existence.”
That’s also what people did when they pointed to the mathematical rigidity of quartz crystal formation as proof of a Maker, and other such misguided arguments about unfalsifiable claims of divine agency.
Their observations were grounded in scientific process, but they applied them to unfalsifiable claims. That part at the end is theology.
I thought you were making an assertion specifically about your magic world outside the fishbowl you think they may have put us in.
Quantum mechanics and General Relativity are theories supported by science and observation. Their validity and acceptance are not transferable to non-falsifiable hypotheses.
