science

This information exists in what physicists call a Platonic realm

Friend-zoned by the universe. That's gotta sting.

I don't buy the simulation hypothesis, but I also don't understand why the simulation would need to be 'complete' as long as it's sufficiently consistent - after all, wouldn't the same argument apply to simulations we do have, such as emulators and VMs? But they work anyway

Mathematical proof sponsored by:

collapsed inline media

Disclaimer: not a physicist, but I am familiar with mathematical logic side of things e.g. incomplete theorem and stuff.

I have to say, terrible paper. Very light on technical details, full of assertions not backed up by arguments. I wouldn't really take this too seriously. But this is just a letter, maybe the full paper, if they ever publish one, will have more substance? We will see.

Full paper is here for those looking for it

All I read is "The computer simulation we're living in fooled some mathematicians"

Any claim of a proof of nonexistence should be taken with a handful of salt, you throw over your shoulder to drive the scary ghosts away. Happy Halloween.

Btw, this logical fallacy is a bunch of whoo.

Would be a better article without the Ai slop

I personally don't believe we're living in a simulation, though it's a fascinating thought experiment and I can't say for certain that we're not. This article is frankly way too definitive about questions that I don't think we're equipped to answer yet, without actually explaining itself.

The simulation hypothesis was long considered untestable, relegated to philosophy and even science fiction, rather than science. This research brings it firmly into the domain of mathematics and physics, and provides a definitive answer.

I haven't read the full paper, but the article about it says the theory is now testable, but doesn't explain how they tested it to get their "definitive answer." They also don't address the fact that their research is based on their current understanding of reality. Usually assertions like this will include something like "as technology progresses, it's likely that more questions will arise and we'll have better tools to attempt to answer them." But nope, it's just a hubristic "here's the definitive truth."

Also, the generated images are infuriating. Either hire an artist, use public domain media, or just lean on the science and leave out the images. Not everything needs meaningless pictures.

Because any putative simulation of the universe would itself be algorithmic, this framework also implies that the universe cannot be a simulation.

How do they conclude that any simulation would have to be (purely) algorithmic? (For a fictional counterexample, take Douglas Adams’ Total Perspective Vortex, which simulates a universe by extrapolating from a physical piece of cake.)

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.

I can't for the life of me find the term, but after going turbo-tism about researching the origins behind Three Body Problem's wacky physics (11-dimension manifold, dimensional unraveling, "Three-and-Three-Hundred-Thousand Syndrome," etc.), I stumbled upon a video postulating that our universe exists to "prop up" this "real" universe. The term that sticks in my head is "corkboard universe" or "anchor universe" but Google finds nothing. Anyway...

The idea is that our universe, and it's 3 dimensions across time, exists to clump things together in gravitational "hotspots" of spacetime. The matter and physics we experience is entirely a byproduct of quantum foam, that itself only creates matter on this side, isolating these 3 dimensions from an entire, larger, fuller universe on the other "side" of the quantum foam made of stuff we would most certainly not call matter, more like weird energy with effects we can't predict or comprehend, all within a much larger dimensionality than our own 3D+T.

This theory is used to explain why String Theory can only postulate higher dimensions as occupying impossibly small spaces in particularly strong regions of spacetime, which are only strong because of the relatively vast swaths of interspersed vacuum between spacetime hotspots (galaxies, mostly, but ESPECIALLY black holes). It's only the transition between low gravity and high gravity that gravity itself has any meaning, much like temperature. Those string universes that String Theory postulates, if real, may be the holes punched through the foam, pulling that real universe into ours at microscoping points. This "anchors" that universe in place, and likely results in some fundamental force on that side "keeping everything together," so to speak. That universe may be the cause of most if not all fundamental forces and constants in our universe, like the speed of light.

So... Basically... We exist as the living scum on the nails holding the corkboard to the wall. If you like. I'm sure the art pinned to the other side is very pretty. I'd hate for it to be a calendar or something boring.

From my non-physicist or mathematician reading of the article, it seems like it hinges on a specific computational theory of quantum gravity. I don't believe we have an experimentally verified theory that connects quantum gravity to macroscopic gravity so it seems like the whole analysis hinges on that.

I thought we didn't understand gravity enough to prove it is quantum though? I think their results are based on the assumption that quantum gravity is the final explanation

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic

Nothing says that our computers can't eventually operate on the same principles as the universe.

If they got it right, then at least the bio-chemical computers producing their minds seem to able to handle 'non-algorithmic' understanding.

Here ΣT is an external, non-recursively-enumerable set of axioms about T

https://jhap.du.ac.ir/article_488.html

So they claim there are no patches to the simulation and state is finite ? Absolutely because we live on flat earth in caves and are not constructed as optimization machines.
So here's my new patch to their equation because it's Friday.

#define TRUE  (1==0)
#define FALSE (!TRUE)

This journal seems quite suspect.

*right now...

"It has been suggested that the universe could be simulated. If such a simulation were possible, the simulated universe could itself give rise to life, which in turn might create its own simulation. This recursive possibility makes it seem highly unlikely that our universe is the original one, rather than a simulation nested within another simulation," says Dr. Faizal. "This idea was once thought to lie beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. However, our recent research has demonstrated that it can, in fact, be scientifically addressed."

That's not how you would make such a simulation. Even if it was real, that higher power making a simulation would still have constraints and would both be able to stop the recursion, and probably never let it emerge in the first place.

The research hinges on a fascinating property of reality itself. Modern physics has moved far beyond Newton's tangible "stuff" bouncing around in space. Einstein's theory of relativity replaced Newtonian mechanics. Quantum mechanics transformed our understanding again. Today's cutting-edge theory—quantum gravity—suggests that even space and time aren't fundamental. They emerge from something deeper: pure information.

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

No.

God is still dead. Theists man...

They used powerful mathematical theorems—including Gödel's incompleteness theorem—to prove that a complete and consistent description of everything requires what they call "non-algorithmic understanding."

Extra no.

The theorem isn't a possible theory. It is fact. What they think they found was already proven to be impossible, theoretically, in any kind of universe. So it's extra funny that they are talking this openly about it, because it means this isn't just regular BS, it is ultra mega turbo BS.

The notion of a simulated universe is a bit of a misnomer IMO. It doesn’t mean the nature of our reality is unphysical as in order to exist as a simulation all of it must be represented physically in whatever the “top level” universe is. It just means that what we experience is built and described in a way that is not inline with our subjective reality, which is true in any case.

Another fun opinion is that it would be easier for a technological civilization to discover it is in a simulation than it would be to develop interstellar travel. Upon discovery of the fact that it is simulated a civilization would either abuse that fact or change it’s behavior both of which ruin the validity of the simulation’s outcome. The natural response to this by whoever is running the experiment would be to cull that part of the data to preserve the fidelity of the result. Thus the Fermi paradox is explained.

Gotta tell you, this sounds like bullshit. Godel's incompleteness theorems prove that there are some questions that cannot be proven by axiom (or consequently, by algorithm). But that in no way rules out simulating our reality. Cuz I got news for you, Godel's incompleteness theorems hold true here inthis universe too, my guys. And yet we still have a functioning universe.

Godels proof only applies to mathematical abstracts like the nature of natural numbers. It shows that we will never have a complete, self consistent, provable description of things like natural numbers. But we still use them all the damn time, particularly in computation. And things that aren't abstract? Things that can be observed, and described? That can all be simulated.

Their argument seems to come down to the idea that you need a non-algorithmic higher order logic to have a universe. Insert whatever mystical unknowable source you want in there. Cool. We would still have that in a simulated universe, sourced from the universe doing the simulation. You dont have to recreate the nature of mathematics in this new universe to simulated it. The math already exists, and you apply it to the simulations. Godel's theorems hold true, and observable physical nature is simulated without issue. The only thing that is actually difficult to simulate algorithmically is true randomness, but there are already plenty of ways to generate random numbers from measurements of our own physical world's randomness, so this too can arise from the higher order world too.

I'm not saying that I think we are actually in a simulation, I'm just saying that the aspects of this "proof" that they mention in the article seems very weak.

Idiots will still believe it anyway.

It would be interesting to see someone with the background to understand the arguments involved in the paper give it a good review.

That said, I've never brought the simulation hypothesis on the simple grounds of compute resources. Part of the argument tends to be the idea of an infinite recursion of simulations, making the possible number of simulations infinite. This has one minor issue, where are all those simulations running? If the top level (call it U0 for Universe 0) is running a simulation (U1) and that simulation decides to run its own simulation (U2), where is U2 running? While the naive answer is U1, this cannot actually be true. U1 doesn't actually exist, everything it it doing is actually being run up in U0. Therefore, for U1 to think it's running U2, U0 needs to simulate U2 and pipe the results into U1. And this logic continues for every sub-simulation run. They must all be simulated by U0. And while U0 may have vast resources dedicated to their simulation, they do not have infinite resources and would have to limit the number of sub-simulation which could be run.