This isn't correct beyond a surface reading.

We know that quantum mechanics and general relativity cannot both be correct, because they conflict with each other.

But more probably, it seems like both are incomplete. There's a lot of unexplained stuff in space too - like dark matter, where some people propose a modified set of gravitational laws to explain motions instead introducing dark matter (which has never been measured). Very theoretical of course.

But we also have been completely unable to add any sort of gravity to quantum mechanics at all. The accepted models of QM more or less ignore gravity entirely because its power is negligible at quantum scales anyway.

What we know is that the extremes - extremely tiny scales, extreme velocity, extreme gravity - has complicated laws of nature, which happen to trend towards simpler forms as conditions approach everyday life. But you can't really conclude anything else based on that.

> Some physicists are questioning if General Relativity is totally accurate. It's a great approximation, but Quantum Theory may be an even better description of the Universe.

This is just nonsense. The two theories are describing entirely different things. Describing "the entire universe" is outside the scope of general relativity, which only describes gravity. Meanwhile, describing gravity is outside the scope of most Quantum Theory, and those that do include gravity lead to inconsistencies - or even worse, contradictions.

I would be careful taking these kinds of ideas too seriously. This starts to get too close to metaphysics for my liking, and I don't believe any physicist genuinely believes or could verify this if they wanted to. It's akin to quantum woo in my mind.

Also, as the other poster already said, saying "quantum theory" is a better description of the universe is nonsense; they describe entirely different things. Although it is no secret they are incompatible as of now, this just indicates one or both may be incomplete but not entirely wrong.

>Some physicists are questioning if General Relativity is totally accurate.

No physicist has ever thought that GR is totally accurate, not even Einstein. We've known from the very beginning that GR and QM are incomplete.

>The simulation has limits so the extreme edges "break" the rules.

What rules does it break? The universe is under no obligation to obey human intuition.

>It is possible the universe is the same way...

That's absolutely nothing to suggest that it is. We humans evolved to have an intuitive understanding of the world we interact with; therefore, we should expect physics to diverge from our evolved intuition when we go beyond humans scales - namely, the very small, very large, very vast, very hot, very rarefied, etc. Go beyond STP and scales of metres and seconds, and we should expect to hit counterintuitive results.

It would be more indicative of a contrived simulation if we didn't encounter edge weirdness.