It’s a plot device beloved by science fiction: our entire universe might be a simulation running on some advanced civilization’s supercomputer. But new research from UBC Okanagan has mathematically proven this isn’t just unlikely—it’s impossible.
Dr. Mir Faizal, Adjunct Professor with UBC Okanagan’s Irving K. Barber Faculty of Science, and his international colleagues, Drs. Lawrence M. Krauss, Arshid Shabir and Francesco Marino have shown that the fundamental nature of reality operates in a way that no computer could ever simulate.
Their findings, published in the Journal of Holography Applications in Physics, go beyond simply suggesting that we’re not living in a simulated world like The Matrix. They prove something far more profound: the universe is built on a type of understanding that exists beyond the reach of any algorithm.
“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.”
Computers are defined as machines that preform a series of arithmetic and logic operations.
The point being that this kind of math is not capable of simulating a universe. If it did something else, it wouldn’t be a computer. It would be something else.
That’s assuming that a Turing Machine is the most powerful possible model for computation. Which it may be, but it’s an open question.
But outside of the confines of the reality we are in it could be on a universal computing device simulating all the reality rules we live by. We would never know because we can’t be outside the reality we are in. Compute position of neutrino, update position, collate interaction with calculated gravity of blahblahblah. We can’t actually comment on what’s “outside” reality.
if We cannot simulate a universe on a computer then the argument for why we would be a simulation is removed in turn, by the logic of the thought experiment.
Since the jist of the argument is that if it was possible, there would likely be an infinite number of simulations simulating each other up and down a chain, and in an infinite series it’s unlikely we’d happen to be the one at the top of the chain. It’s also equally unlikely that we’re at the end of an infinite chain.
So, if we can’t simulate here, no reason to believe we are a simulation in turn. Just like how there is no reason to believe in an as yet unobserved teapot floating between here and mars.
If each over-universe is capable of simulating multiple under-universes, I would think that being toward the fringe is way more likely than being toward the root. Maybe we’re in one of the younger universes where life hasn’t evolved to the point where it’s simulating universes complex enough to generate intelligent life for a hobby. Or maybe others in this universe have and Earth is just a backwater.
I don’t think it’s as simple as the teapot. We can already simulate tiny “universes” with computers that have internally consistent rules, and there’s no reason to think those simulations couldn’t get more sophisticated as we harness more computing power, which I think puts an interesting lens on the “why are we here?” question. I don’t think there’s evidence to believe that we are in a simulation, but I think there are reasons why it’s an interesting question to wrestle with that “What about a giant floating teapot?” doesn’t share.
We can simulate any universe we want, we code the rules of how the universe operates and let it play out. If you want our exact universe we’d need more computer power.
More compute power than the entire universe could provide.
Right, if you havea VM it takes a hypervisor machine, the hypervisor is more powerful than the VM. You obviously can’t emulate your own reality inside your reality; That makes no sense. If we were in a SIM the outer machine would be a system not operating by our rules, and would be larger. Just like a larger computer is needed to host a VM
The jist of this paper is that it’s not possible to computer a simulation of a universe. Like, there is no sequences of arithmetic or logical operations that could do it, and they’re providing proofs to that effect.
But they are providing proof based on the limitations of the confines of our own reality. A system that simulated our universe would not obey our reality rules…those only are a creation in the sim. We have discovered quantum computing but quantum mechanics might just be a construct for us, and computation outside is more advanced.
Their logic has flawed assumption that the master computer running us with all our physical laws, is a complete copy of the same laws. If we were in a sim there is no reason the hypervisor has same rules/reality as us. It could be a larger environment where speed of light does not have to equal 1, or maybe light don’t snt exist, and that’s one of the made up concepts in the sim
the “something else” is the thing-- saying that it’s impossible for the universe to be a simulation is going ahead and claiming that there will never ever be a “something else” that could do the computation, or, have the “non-algorithmic understanding” they’re talking about.
which to my mind is on an equal plane as “we don’t know why X happened, therefore god exists”
edit: interestingly, speaking of “god,” hermeticists believe the universe itself is a mental projection “all is mind,” the principle of mentalism. from that point of view, our universe isn’t a “simulation” per se, but more like a dream. or nightmare. more nightmare than dream at this point
https://www.mindbodygreen.com/articles/7-hermetic-principles
Saying that the universe could be a simulation, when we have no evidence for that assertion is the same as saying “god could have made the universe”
Like, we can’t prove that isn’t true, but why they hell would I believe it’s a reasonable possibility if there is no evidence suggesting it as a possibility.
100 years ago there was no evidence that you (and everyone) would have not just a phone, but an actual computer in their pocket. “balderdash!” they would have said if you suggested it. “preposterous! impossible!”
again i’m not saying we ARE in a simulation, nor am i telling you what to believe, but i’m still skeptical of the “it’s impossible, proven by my math” claim, seeing as how so many “certainties” throughout history have had to be adjusted–or discarded–due to new developments
It’s not worth considering as a real possibility until a plausible pathway by which it could be done is presented. Not even like, a practical pathway, just something that could theoretically accomplish the task.
This paper is just saying that computers could not even theoretically do the task. There is no possible sequences of arithmetic or logical operations that could do it. And a computer is definitionally a machine that carries out sequences of arithmetic or logical operations.
there are plenty of things going on in the world that science can’t explain. but it happens, without a “plausible pathway by which it could be done”
anyway, nice talking. i reject the “it’s impossible” claim