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."
post
This is such a surface level analysis that i get cringe by reading it. Who the hell says the simulation couldntve been written in a way that you cant simulate itself inside it. For all we know, the upper level universe has not only physics, but logic that we cannot comprehend. Im not talking about non eucledian geometry or how many spacial and time dimensions they have but the way true and false statements, logic itself, could work in a different way. Thats why we may never understand physics because the rules that define it could possibly not even make sense in the world that they in turn define.
that no computer could ever simulate.
That assumes that the über-universe has the same laws of physics. We cannot, and will never be able to tell if this is a simulation universe. These professors assume that the other universe simulating ours is very similar. The only thing they could proof is, that the universe which simulates ours, cannot have the same laws of physics. Maybe that.
The research is interesting, but there is so much wrong with this headline. For instance it's relying on a definition of a computer is, but it's not really prepared of a computer+ appearing. Another problem is that this doesn't deal with the possibility that it's still turtles all the way down, but each turtle is less complex than the one below it...
Like others have stated, this would only hold true if the supposed outer universe to ours has the same properties as ours. So while it may be true that we will never simulate a universe that is equal to ours (with classical computers and algorithms), it doesn't negate that a computer/device in a universe could simulate an inferior version of the universe.
Take Minecraft as an example. You can make the logic leap and say it's a simulated universe, and people have in Minecraft created am inferior version of Minecraft with Redstone logic.
So of you can create an inferior version of Minecraft within Minecraft, it's not much of a jump to think that we could be an inferior version of some outer universe.
Doesn't this assume all universes follow the same physical rules?
let's play a fun game where we read a "breaking news" story about a scientific "discovery" and count the reasons to be skeptical about it
by Patty Wellborn, University of British Columbia
...
Dr. Mir Faizal, Adjunct Professor with UBC Okanagan's Irving K. Barber Faculty of Science
right off the bat - you have a conflict of interest where the person writing this is from the same university as the lead author.
this article is stylized to read like "news" but it's probably more accurate to treat it like you would a press release.
and in fact, this same text is on UBC's website where it explicitly says "Content type: Media Release"
Patty Wellborn's author page there seems to indicate that writing this kind of press release is a major part of her job
and his international colleagues, Drs. Lawrence M. Krauss
huh...that name sounds familiar...let me go check his wikipedia page and oh look there's a Controversies section with "Relationship with Jeffrey Epstein" and "Allegations of sexual misconduct" subsections.
Their findings, published in the Journal of Holography Applications in Physics
that journal is published by Damghan University in Iran
there's a ton of xenophobia and Islamophobia that gets turned up to 11 when people in the English-speaking world start discussing Iran, so I don't want to dismiss this journal out-of-hand...but their school of physics has 2 full professors?
if I was going to find out "oh Damghan is actually well-regarded for physics research" or something that's not what I'd expect to see
but anyway, let's look at the paper itself
except, hold on, it's not a paper, it's a letter:
Document Type : Letter
that's an important difference:
Letters: This is a very ambiguous category, primarily defined by being short, often <1000 words. They may be used to report a single piece of information, often from part of a larger study, or may be used to respond to another paper. These may or may not go out for peer review - for example, I recently had a paper accepted where the decision was made entirely by the editor.
reading a bit further:
Received: June 6, 2025; Accepted: June 17, 2025
this is "proving" something fundamental about the nature of the universe...and the entire review process took 11 calendar days? (basically one work week, the 6th was a Friday and the 17th was a Tuesday)
all 46 comments