this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2025
178 points (75.9% liked)

Technology

76558 readers
2477 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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
[–] magic_lobster_party@fedia.io 4 points 2 days ago (2 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.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago (1 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.

[–] magic_lobster_party@fedia.io 4 points 2 days ago (1 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.

[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago (1 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

[–] magic_lobster_party@fedia.io 1 points 1 day ago (1 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.

[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago (1 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?

[–] magic_lobster_party@fedia.io 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

In that case it must also have different laws of mathematics for it to work.

Yes sorry, I took that as one and the same.

[–] henfredemars 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] magic_lobster_party@fedia.io 3 points 2 days 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.