199
Mathematics disproves Matrix theory, says reality isn’t simulation (interestingengineering.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
131 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

And here I was waiting to get unplugged, or maybe finding a Nokia phone that received a call.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 1 year ago (9 children)

We simulate weather systems all the time, even though the systems are fundamentally chaotic and it’s impossible to forecast accurately.

Weather simulations are approximations. It’s not an exact replication of the universe.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    But who sait it must be a perfect match?

    I mean they can argue that we can't simulate correctly the universe (just check kaos theory) but that doesn't mean we cant simulate a universe. Even a universe that looks feels like ours.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    The paper makes the argument that the universe we live in is mathematically uncomputable. No algorithm can describe it. There’s no mathematical formula we can use to compute the universe as it is.

    If this is the case, then we don’t live inside a computer. Something more than pure computation is required.

    Now their argument is that quantum gravity is the thing that makes the universe uncomputable. I’m not sure how valid this part of their argument is.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    If this is the case, then we don’t live inside a computer. Something more than pure computation is required.

    SO many assumptions in that statement

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    Well, ”computer” in the mathematical sense is well defined of what it can and cannot do. The limit is the halting problem or equivalent problems.

    The question is: is there some equivalent to the halting problem in the real universe? If that’s the case, then there’s no algorithm you can use to describe the entire universe.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    ”computer” in the mathematical sense is well defined of what it can and cannot do.

    It is in this universe. Who's to say the same holds remotely true in a different universe that may have entirely different laws of physics?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Can the universe not also approximate? Why must it be an exact result whenever a rule is applied?

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

    Then it’s not an approximation - it’s the reality. The question is whether all things the universe does can also a computer do in theory. If one thing about the universe is uncomputable, then the entire universe is uncomputable.

    The paper suggests this thing is quantum gravity. I have my doubts about it, but I’m in no position to refute the paper.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent