This reads like the work of a crank. It's a lot of words to present the hypothesis that gravity is evidence for the universe being a "computer simulation" (on what computer? In what other universe? Why does that universe have computers? How is it more "real" rather than "simulated" than this one?) because... things falling reduces entropy, which would supposedly be convenient for a computer simulation because it wouldn't have to track as much information. (In the "real" universe, is there not gravity? Can things be constructed in that world? For that matter, would putative computers in the putative real universe be constrained by the same considerations? Why should we be able to reason about how those computers work, from ones that we created here?) None of the logic makes sense, and weak philosophical arguments (in the service of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis) are passed off as science.
