Current Events > Mathematical proof debunks the idea that the universe is a computer simulation

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://phys.org/news/2025-10-mathematical-proof-debunks-idea-universe.html

Well I'll be damned. This is all real.

Poor philosophers, once again seeing elements of their field they thought could only ever be theirs taken over by physicists.

That's just what the simulation wants you to think.

KajeI posted...

That's just what the simulation wants you to think.

this.

wonder how long before musk declares all those scientists pedophiles for trying to debunk his belief?

I read the article and I still don't see how the conclusion was reached. I don't even see how one could categorically disprove such a theory

Dungeater posted...

I read the article and I still don't see how the conclusion was reached. I don't even see how one could categorically disprove such a theory

It doesn't and it's worth noting Lawrence Krauss being involved with anything at this point is an enormous red flag

Could say the same about physics. It has rules not unlike their computational rules they talk about.

For instance lets say these are the parameters before starting the simulation. What we percieve as physics are just what keeps the simulation working as intended. Lines of code

I looked into it about a decade ago. I was looking for reason behind my sisters passing. While it helped me cope there isnt real proof there is or there isnt. So I moved on.

Think of it this way. A computer follows recipes, step by step, no matter how complex. But some truths can only be grasped through non-algorithmic understandingunderstanding that doesn't follow from any sequence of logical steps. These "Gdelian truths" are real, yet impossible to prove through computation.
Here's a basic example using the statement, "This true statement is not provable." If it were provable, it would be false, making logic inconsistent. If it's not provable, then it's true, but that makes any system trying to prove it incomplete. Either way, pure computation fails.

Reading this shit makes me think physicists are just playing grab ass all day

That's one of those theories that I had existential dread for about a second and then thought "meh... it wouldn't change anything".

All they've proved is the halting problem exists. Yes, reality is not a computer simulation using our model of computing. That doesn't prove anything about a theoretical model of computing that could simulate a universe.

Without even reading it IDK how anyone could speak on "what no computer could do" when we live in a world where technology functions the way it does.

Look at how much life changed from 1900 to 1950. Then 1950 to 2000. I'd damn near say we doubled those jumps in 2000 to 2025. We;ve been around for thousands of years at this point and damn near just the last 100 years we developed everything we have.

AI will only make this increase faster. It's so weird to think by like 2040 people will be like "lol they used to use smart phones".

Well, I can think of a number of follow-up questions, but the most pertinent one is--of course--how do they know that the theoretical machine that simulates our universe operates anything like the ones we know? I feel like at best, this just declares that whatever theoretical machine is operating the simulation simply doesn't operate in an algorithmic way.

But it's always been a pretty simple thought experiment. If anyone really did believe we were in a simulation, hardly anyone behaved any differently as a result.

EmbraceOfDeath posted...

All they've proved is the halting problem exists. Yes, reality is not a computer simulation using our model of computing. That doesn't prove anything about a theoretical model of computing that could simulate a universe.

Even if you found this line of reasoning convincing, you really are just back to the philosophical problem of the evil demon that is tricking you by providing false sensory data. If both the universe and ourselves are simulated, it may simply be that a designated property of the simulation that it is impossible to create nested simulation or impossible for generated minds to think of a means of doing so (say, to save on processing power in the "real" universe). There may also be novel physics or mathematics that exist in the "real" universe but that don't exist here. In fact, that's a pretty convincing reason for creating a simulation of a universe in the first place.

The same problem comes about if you imagine that we are inside of simulation that is actual some sort of game where at least some of us are "players". It's perfectly plausible to imagine that there is a block on players recalling that they are players, or anything about their real lives. The apparent unreality of the simulation could be added realism by the designers.

entropy baby!

No idea if that fits, I just wanted to say it

i said this years ago. on CE too. great to see actual research on it! the idea that "nothing is real" has not been good for society these last 20 or so years.

Giacomo_Hawkins posted...

Poor philosophers, once again seeing elements of their field they thought could only ever be theirs taken over by physicists.

Centuries ago physicists started as philosophers, now theyve circled back home

Robot2600 posted...

i said this years ago. on CE too. great to see actual research on it! the idea that "nothing is real" has not been good for society these last 20 or so years.

I sort of feel better knowing that if this is everything and will always be everything, then we're pretty special in a way. We came from blobs of nothing to this. And that there is no set path or right or wrong. No outside forces, no predetermination. Just us and the universe and what we decide to do with it. The world is your oyster.

Eww, bunch of AI Slop all over that article.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

I mean this can go back at least far as Laplace's Demon. Well, we can probably go even further than that. The idea that if we had a being of unimaginable processing power could the universe be mathematically simulated perfectly, and if so does that disprove free will. And the answer to that has been. "Eh, probably not. Quantum Mechanics are weird and variable."

Unless, you know, that too was programmed into it...

Not sure why people love simulation theory so much.

I mean, the first Matrix was OK, but . . .

I think I seen this episode of Futurama.

I mean, while cool and all, isn't a bit of hubris to assume we could even begin to understand a simulation capable of running all of this when we can't even get asses to stop clipping through capes on the average?

Jokes aside, cool read. Kinda fascinating stuff. The theory was never one I agreed with anyway, but it's a fun plot device. The scientific reality is similarly cool.

I hate to admit it, but the simulation theory is just the techbro version of religions. I've always been on the fence regarding simulations and fascinated regarding them, probably because of things like The Matrix, while completely not believing in any of the religions, but simulations aren't really any different. There's a creator in both instances. And they have their own goals. It's all the same.

Sounds like the Wachowski sisters have some material for the next Matrix installment.

I understood this more than the last film.

Well I believe math is the devil and the devil is known to lie.

https://xkcd.com/435/

It all boils down to math in the end.

These people spent time and money to prove a fictional movie from 1999 isn't real, yet do nothing to debunk Santa Claus after 200 years.

Beings that would be able makes us think we are real and not actually some AI program or some Matrix type thing would be so far more advanced understanding of math & science than us humans

This proves nothing!

JoCrazy posted...

Beings that would be able makes us think we are real and not actually some AI program or some Matrix type thing would be so far more advanced understanding of math & science than us humans

This proves nothing!

Correct or not, the maths is at least grounded in human knowledge and logic (and will be tested against that standard). Countering it by imagining the existence of some mysterious unknown beyond our understanding is pretty much just another form of religious belief. God of the gaps stuff.

The author of that article has no idea what non-algorithmic understanding is

While it's still possible we are in a simulation that's being run in some "higher" dimension, that's not what simulation theory was on about--it argued that it was almost certain that we were in a simulation run by future humans--that's a much stronger position than a generically agnostic "we just don't know!" sort of attitude.

This new study shows that, essentially, you couldn't run a perfect simulation of reality and they thereby use that to disprove one of the main premises of the most popular version of "simulation theory."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTL0-RH2LfU

Could God program a simulated universe so computationally complex, that even He could not download enough RAM to get it to compile?

What is 'non-algorithmic understanding' and why is it not able to be simulated?