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.”
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