The article should have linked to the original Simulation Argument by Nick Bostrom, since the physics part is just one of many possible tests to verify the hypothesis. Here is Nick Bostron's argument: http://www.simulation-argument.com/
What are the other tests? I've read Bostrom's argument, but wasn't aware that he was proposing any specific tests.
I think the argument is more like, "If we are in a simulation, it can't have an infinite resolution because that would imply an infinite amount of memory and computational power. We should be able to detect the 'graininess' at the limit of resolution."
I'm not even sure that's true. Fractals come to mind.
ewww... a stoner
We can, via simulations, deduce what a world with an infinitely fine grid (or no grid, depending on your preferred language) would be like. Is our world like that world? If not, then there must be a grid at the bottom that is only finitely fine. See my top-level comment for more detail.
So the argument seems to be that, if we were living in a simulation, and it used physics we now know to be slightly inaccurate, we would be able to measure that.
Maybe I'm missing something, but that's not very logical is it?