276
Mathematical proof debunks the idea that the universe is a computer simulation (phys.org)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/science@lemmy.world
129 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 92 points 1 year ago (4 children)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 37 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Yes it seems to be nonsense. Yes the universe has non algorithmic knowledge. All the universal constants and theories fall into that category. The speed of light is 2.99x10^8 m/s and constant in all reference frames. That's what it is. There's no algorithm to derive it. (Yes you can use other universal constants to get c but it's the same deal.)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    also there's various forms of randomness which cannot be pre-computed. and that includes observing the world around you.

    it's interesting, because there's even things within maths itself that cannot be pre-computed. just consider the n-th digit of any irrational number, such as the square root of 2. any computer, no matter how you prepare it, necessarily only has finite knowledge (because you can only prepare finite knowledge on a computer). therefore, there's always an n big enough sothat the computer does not yet know the n-th digit of the irrational number; therefore it is random from the computer's point of view.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Depends on what is being observed or tested. For example, if end-stage heat death is the experiment, a complete indexing of all possible heat sources would require more or less a complete simulation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago

    Sure, but that's not what 'complete' means in the context of gödel's incompleteness theorems. It means 'being able to prove all true statements'.

    And I really don't see why that matters - for example an NES emulator doesn't know what a Mario is, or what a jump is, but it's still true that when certain games are running, most of the time pressing one of the buttons on the controller makes Mario jump.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent