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.”
Some other intelligent life might be running a simulation within this universe. There might be an infinite number of simulations being run beyond the universe visible to us chimps.
Edit - I haven’t read the paper but will, but I will risk this anyway. I call us chimps because if our maths professors can’t see someone else might be running a simulation or many simulations, I’m not sure how intelligent we really .
Ok, but we have no observations that would lead us to believe it is possible to do, let alone lead us believe it is likely the case. So it stays a thought experiment, not a plausible explanation.
I love the series of thought experiments Einstein conducted that led him to his theory of special relativity (that was similarly unobserved up to that point).
Without yet reading the paper I can’t really comment, except to say the premise seems hopelessly myopic (“if we can’t do it right now it isn’t possible”), so the logic seems flawed, making the whole thing seem somewhat foolish before I have even picked it up.
It seems to me that a significant amount of physics is reaching a point that our logic, built out of maths, might not be able to contend with. Maybe physicists and mathematicians will build a LHC that rationalises the irrational. Maybe philosophy starts to matter to the degree philosophers are no longer considered lowly tourists.
I have a maths PhD in my immediate family. I am very familiar with the limitations mathematicians can exhibit in terms of the extent their logic is able to process the world as it is lol.