''Don't play your games with me. Do you reckon I've never heard the stupid term before?''
You're the one playing games. You have heard of the term before, yet you accuse me of making this stuff up. And in spite of providing you with terms and references of meaning and usage, the context of my remarks being being correct, you still have your knickers in twist about who knows what. You know very well that particle duality - that photons for example can display both the characteristics of waves or particles in the double slit, when being either 'observed' (detector present) or unobserved, and its loose reference as 'wavicles' (particle duality)
I think you are creating a smokescreen to cover the fact that your pet theory of a simulated universe is in fact low on the list of possibilities. It is considered to be an option, but there are better models on the table.
But you go too far. You act as if simulation is not only the top option, but virtually a proven proposition when no such thing is true.
''Can you point to a wavicle for me? Has anyone identified one?''
You see, on the one hand you claim to understand the references, but on the other hand you make such as that, which strongly suggest that you don't understand the references at all.
For the sake of other readers:
''Wave–particle duality is the concept that every elementary particle or quantic entity may be partly described in terms not only of particles, but also of waves. It expresses the inability of the classical concepts "particle" or "wave" to fully describe the behavior of quantum-scale object'' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave–particle_duality
