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."
Doesn't this assume all universes follow the same physical rules?
If we can’t do it here, then the main point of the simulated universe thought experiment is void.
The argument being roughly that, if we could simulate a universe, and it could do the same, it would likely lead to an infinite chain of universe simulating other universes. In such a case, it would be highly unlikely that we just happened to be the first one in the chain, thus it would be likely we are a simulation in turn.
But it’s equally unlikely that we happen to be the last simulation in an infinite chain. So we’re probably not a simulation
What is the main point of the thought experiment?
If we consider a possibility from all sides, then whether or not we could similate a universe that follows different physics is one of those sides. We don't have the power to do that, but we can create programs that simulate different physics. Stands to reason that not every universe may follow the same fundamental laws.
I don't agree that it's equally unlikely to be the first as the last, either, if the universes branch off. A tree has thousands of leaves and only one trunk.
we have no reason to believe that a universe could be simulated. No proven plausible pathway by which that could be accomplished.
That doesn’t prove it is not possible, you cannot prove a negative. It just means that we have no reason to believe it could be true.
If you find it an interesting thought experiment, then no reason not to think about it, but it should have no baring on anyone’s decision making or assumptions about the world.
The simulation hypothesis is creationism for techbros.
And more specifically the cult of AI and the singularity.
I am treating it as a thought experiment, which is why I'm questioning how math can prove a negative to a fairly ambiguous question in the first place.
It's in the realm of disproving determinism and flying spaghetti monsters.
There is a whole field of mathematics built around proving something is not computable. The paper is saying that a simulation of the universe is non-computable problem.
Yes, I know, which is why I brought up the idea of inconsistent physics between universes.
I'm not questioning whether the paper's math is accurate. We both seem to agree the hypothesis can't be proven in the first place.