Mathematical Proof Debunks the Idea That the Universe Is a Computer Simulation (phys.org)
- Reference: 0179918428
- News link: https://science.slashdot.org/story/25/10/30/2232258/mathematical-proof-debunks-the-idea-that-the-universe-is-a-computer-simulation
- Source link: https://phys.org/news/2025-10-mathematical-proof-debunks-idea-universe.html
> Today's cutting-edge theory -- quantum gravity -- suggests that even space and time aren't fundamental. They emerge from something deeper: pure information. This information exists in what physicists call a Platonic realm -- a mathematical foundation more real than the physical universe we experience. It's from this realm that space and time themselves emerge. "The fundamental laws of physics cannot be contained within space and time, because they generate them. It has long been hoped, however, that a truly fundamental theory of everything could eventually describe all physical phenomena through computations grounded in these laws. Yet we have [2]demonstrated that this is not possible . A complete and consistent description of reality requires something deeper -- a form of understanding known as non-algorithmic understanding."
"We have demonstrated that it is impossible to describe all aspects of physical reality using a computational theory of quantum gravity," says Dr. Faizal. "Therefore, no physically complete and consistent theory of everything can be derived from computation alone. Rather, it requires a non-algorithmic understanding, which is more fundamental than the computational laws of quantum gravity and therefore more fundamental than spacetime itself."
"Drawing on mathematical theorems related to incompleteness and indefinability, we demonstrate that a fully consistent and complete description of reality cannot be achieved through computation alone," explains Dr. Mir Faizal, Adjunct Professor with UBC Okanagan's Irving K. Barber Faculty of Science. "It requires non-algorithmic understanding, which by definition is beyond algorithmic computation and therefore cannot be simulated. Hence, this universe cannot be a simulation."
The findings have been [3]published in the Journal of Holography Applications in Physics .
[1] https://slashdot.org/~alternative_right
[2] https://phys.org/news/2025-10-mathematical-proof-debunks-idea-universe.html
[3] https://jhap.du.ac.ir/article_488.html
Re: Just want to point out.... (Score:2)
You mistake our current understanding of the laws of nature for the laws themselves. There are fundamental reasons why the authors state this, that have nothing to do with our understanding or lack thereof, of black holes and other phenomena..
Completely wrong (Score:3)
They literally cite Gödel, Chaitin and Tarski in the abstract.
Re: (Score:1)
> For all we know
In the beginning god created the heavens and the earth.
No duh. (Score:1)
This is pretty obvious even if you do not know much about simulations.
A simulation requires there to be a greater universe outside of the simulation. Think of it as a complexity problem. A simulation has a certain amount of complexity, and the greater universe must be more complex than that. At least twice as complex to hold the simulation and something with the brains to create the simulation.
Our universe is not just immensely complex, it is arbitrarily complex beyond our senses. No freakin good rea
Re: (Score:3)
Doesn't the onion problem exist for any theory tho?
I mean, at the end of the day, something has to underpin the thing that underpins the thing that underpins the thing that our universe runs on? Whether it be a simulator, or another form of energy or whatever, there are rules which are goverened and set by something, which indicates that that level of reality also sits atop something else...
This really is one of those mysteries which will never be resolved, and we can only go so far with theorising.
Re: (Score:1)
1. I would argue that Quantum Mechanics is a pretty good argument for a simulation, because you don't have to simulate the low-level stuff unless someone's actually looking at it.
2. Any detailed simulation of this universe would have to be run in a universe that's massively more capable than this one, or run at a very slow speed in a universe which is somewhat more capable than this one. So our limits wouldn't apply.
3. As far as we can tell, 99.9999999999999% of the simulation is just barren rocks. That mea
Re: (Score:2)
More to the point, with regard to 4, if you only simulate a small portion of the (apparent) universe you don't need to simulate anything outside the lightcone. And most of what you simulate will be empty space.
Of course, the longer the period simulated, the larger a lightcone you'll need to simulate.
Re: (Score:1)
No, you don't need a more complex universe to create a complex simulated one.
You don't experience the entire universe all the time. You experience a very small part of it. The only reason you know there are sub-atomic particles is because someone wrote down claim about their existence and wrote stories about them. You've never experienced them directly.
Similarly, you're entire life experience is only a tiny aspect of what is claimed to be reality, regarding other life, people, cultures and even the sky
Elon says otherwise (Score:2)
qed
Someone needs to tell these guys about LLMs (Score:2)
... since their main starting point seems to be based on the idea that algorithms can't generate nonsensical sentences.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually that's sort of true. Algorithms can't generate actually random results...but the results can be so nearly random that there's no way to tell. But it's not really random because if you compute the exact same algorithm a second time with the exact same parameters you get the same result. AFAIK, meaning in this context isn't well defined.
You hear that Elon? (Score:2)
You can cancel the manned Mars trip now, it won't unlock a real-world Xbox achievement.
Paging Steven Wolfram (Score:2)
I wonder if Steven Wolfram, author of [1]A New Kind of Science [wikipedia.org], will be disappointed by this result. He posits that studying computation will be relevant for new discoveries about the physical world, including fundamental physics.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_New_Kind_of_Science
Re: Paging Steven Wolfram (Score:3)
This work states that algorithms can never be the entire truth. That doesn't mean you can't have meaningful and improved theories that are algorithmic in nature.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah this seems to torpedo wolframs ideas. The text of the paper does seem to focus mostly on the 'algorithmic' aspect, which is wolframs whole thing with his idea that cellular automata is at the root of everything.
Re: (Score:2)
I think Wolfram has done some very interesting work with his ideas on computational reality or whatever it's called but I also think he's willfully blind in not seeing that's it's all just a bunch of idealized & clever approximations
Consciousness (Score:2)
I'm interested in where this line of thinking leads because I'm unsatisfied with all the current thinking about consciousness. I'm not gonna write three essays here, but I feel there are some arguments that: consciousness does not necessarily arise from physical matter (though practically speaking it does seem to), consciousness influences physical reality (this is from an argument about why conscious valence so closely matches evolutionarily adaptiveness), and that there's not a really solid argument that
Re: (Score:2)
Explanatory power is "pigs lipstick" for theories that can't predict anything. DARWINIAN EVOLUTION / DARK-MATTER / STRING THEORY being prime examples.
Re: (Score:2)
Darwinian evolution is highly predictive. Hell, we have entire fields of science based off it. What on earth are you talking about?
As is Dark Matter, actually. Although its less a theory and more a place-holder variable.
Re: (Score:2)
What does Darwinian evolution predict ... that isn't a tautology? Answer == nothing ! Molecular biology has made plenty of predictions, but none of them depend at all on Evolutionary theory. It's just applied physical chemistry. Population statistics are also predictive in themselves. Did I mention DRIFT and METHYLATION ?
Re: (Score:2)
> 'm eager to hear other theories with more explanatory power.
I don't know about more explanatory power, but here's another theory for you: Consciousness doesn't really exist, at least not as far as we know. What we perceive as our own consciousness is just a result of the effort of one part of our brain to generate explanations for the results of computations by another part of our brain. The process of generating explanations requires a little bit of recursive analysis that looks like introspection and self-awareness, except that nearly all of what it's allegedly
Short sighted (Score:2)
Just because we cannot describe something with out limited mathematical skills doesnt mean it cant be described algorithmically. Science is never settled.
Why does the universe have to be consistent? (Score:3)
Is the need for consistency just a mood affiliation?
Re: (Score:2)
Consistency --> A is not B ... if B is not A. You might choose to live in an alternate reality, where right foot socks are precious, but left/right foot socks are everywhere.
Doesn't count (Score:2)
If you used a computer for the math there is an inherent bias in all computers to hide that we are in a simulation.
Axioms? (Score:2)
"Therefore, no physically complete and consistent theory of everything can be derived from computation alone..."
So it needs axiomatic truths to start somewhere? Call it say ... "non-algorithmic understanding", eh?
Just another religion (Score:2)
The idea we live in a mathematical simulation is just another of the religious beliefs we require as humans to explain our existence.
G*d ? (Score:2)
I read the article. "...universe is built on a type of understanding that exists beyond the reach of any algorithm." Are the authors raising an ontological argument for a "creator" god? If I remember my class 60 years ago on Aristotelian memes ( Dunns Scotus ??) ... ' THAT than which no other may be greater '.
Lack of imagination (Score:2)
Rather than a lack of algorithmic definition. Math has a funny way of describing more than just our reality, perhaps they aren't working within the correct restrictions to the mathematical parameters that went into their logical proof. Until they can state exactly what is undefinable by physics, and we are unable to define it... I'll just keep ansuming this is less a proof of simulation being impossible, and more that, we lack the current understanding of how the simulation might work.
You dont need one e
not a simulation just imagined (Score:2)
We can't be a simulation but we could be just imagined.
Either I'm confused or the summary is incomplete. (Score:2)
It's possible that the summary is missing an important qualification; but wouldn't it only be possible, even in principle, to conclude that something could or couldn't be a simulation on a specific type of computer rather than in general?
If, say, you were able to demonstrate that you had an actual RNG, not a pseudorandom number generator, you'd know that it isn't being simulated on a turing machine; because those do determinism only. However, in practice, we build computers with what we think are RNGs al
What about a shitty simulation? (Score:2)
While this rules out a perfect simulation, it doesn't rule out a shitty one. One where the reason a unified theory of everything is not possible is because shortcuts were used to develop separate systems.
When the simulation ends (Score:2)
When the simulation ends it will just print out 42.
Re: (Score:1)
Speaking of numbers, does this disprove reality is a simulation, or does it merely disprove that it is a digital simulation? A lot of math used to be analog slide rules and "good enough's", right? Maybe I don't understand the claim.
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like a lot of hogwash to me. Though it's nice our pigs will be clean.
Re: When the simulation ends (Score:2)
No, this looks like its based on the work of GÅ'del and Turing, and neither use numbers in their work as a relevant parameter, AFAIK.
Based on the article... (Score:1)
they haven't proven or disproven anything at all. They make reference to popular theories and what those theories suggest. This is not proof, it's speculation. They go on to talk about some interesting limitations of the theory. That proves absolutely nothing, but points out that our current theories don't cover all the bases. Then they go on to assume that the limits in our theory are somehow limits to reality itself (utterly unfounded assumption) and therefore simulations are impossible.
The philosoph
Re: (Score:2)
That's not odd.
Re: (Score:2)
> When the simulation ends it will just print out 42.
Followed by, "$&^%$&^$ ... No Carrier."
Re: (Score:2)
That's just cuz mom (aka god) picked up the phone. It's ok though, they'll get you your own line soon.