A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
rule #1: be kind
Because any putative simulation of the universe would itself be algorithmic, this framework also implies that the universe cannot be a simulation.
How do they conclude that any simulation would have to be (purely) algorithmic? (For a fictional counterexample, take Douglas Adams’ Total Perspective Vortex, which simulates a universe by extrapolating from a physical piece of cake.)
That's exactly the sentence that made me pause. I could hook up an implementation of Conway's Game of Life to a Geiger counter near a radioisotope that randomly flipped squares based on detection events, and I think I'd have a non-algorithmic simulated universe. And I doubt any observer in that universe would be able to construct a coherent theory about why some squares seemingly randomly flip using only their own observations; you'd need to understand the underlying mechanics of the universe's implementation, how radioactive decay works for one, and those just wouldn't be available in-universe, the concept itself is inaccessible.
Makes me question the editors if the abstract can get away with that kind of claim. I've never heard of the Journal of Holography Applications in Physics, maybe they're just eager for splashy papers.
I thought we didn't understand gravity enough to prove it is quantum though? I think their results are based on the assumption that quantum gravity is the final explanation
We don't understand gravity to the point where we have a consistent algorithmic explanation for it. As suggested, there are competing theories, all of which are algorithmically based. The holy grail of modern physics is to find the algorithm that explains gravity as that is the last missing piece to finalize the theory of everything.
The results of this research are implying that it is not possible to prove, algorithmically, that gravity is quantum but rather that quantum gravity as the foundation of the universe is non-algorithmic and therefore non-computational. And so a theory of everything is impossible, implying that the universe cannot be simulated by computing the theory of everything.
This research builds on a lot of the work that Roger Penrose did in the 90s in exploring the potential non-algorithmic nature of consciousness (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose#Consciousness). If you read his book "Shadows of the Mind" published in 1993 you will find a prediction of future computational abilities that is a shockingly accurate description of AI deep fakes and the AI slop we see today with LLMs.
The no-simulated universe idea is one interesting conclusion of this research, but in my opinion, a more interesting conclusion of this research is that if you believe Penrose's argument for consciousness being non-algorithmic, than this research is implying that AGI is also impossible.
Yeah, there is no consensus on quantum gravity. There are competing theories, none of which have any viable path to test.
Here's the abstract from a paper from last year at https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0601043 (PDF, unfortunately):
Freeman Dyson has questioned whether any conceivable experiment in the real universe can detect a single graviton. If not, is it meaningful to talk about gravitons as physical entities? We attempt to answer Dyson’s question and find it is possible concoct an idealized thought experiment capable of detecting one graviton; however, when anything remotely resembling realistic physics is taken into account, detection becomes impossible, indicating that Dyson’s conjecture is very likely true. We also point out several mistakes in the literature dealing with graviton detection and production.
Edit: That said, the paper does address this. They cover a variety of QG theories and try to address the fundamental requirements any theory must meet.
As we do not have a fully consistent theory of quantum gravity, several different axiomatic systems have been proposed to model quantum gravity Witten:1985cc ; Ziaeepour:2021ubo ; Faizal2024 ; bombelli1987spacetime ; Majid:2017bul ; DAriano:2016njq ; Arsiwalla:2021eao . In all these programs, it is assumed a candidate theory of quantum gravity is encoded as a computational formal system
ℱQG={ℒQG,ΣQG,ℛalg}.
It's over my head, personally.
*right now...
Here ΣT is an external, non-recursively-enumerable set of axioms about T
https://jhap.du.ac.ir/article_488.html
So they claim there are no patches to the simulation and state is finite ? Absolutely because we live on flat earth in caves and are not constructed as optimization machines.
So here's my new patch to their equation because it's Friday.
#define TRUE (1==0)
#define FALSE (!TRUE)
This journal seems quite suspect.
"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."
That's not how you would make such a simulation. Even if it was real, that higher power making a simulation would still have constraints and would both be able to stop the recursion, and probably never let it emerge in the first place.
The research hinges on a fascinating property of reality itself. Modern physics has moved far beyond Newton's tangible "stuff" bouncing around in space. Einstein's theory of relativity replaced Newtonian mechanics. Quantum mechanics transformed our understanding again. Today's cutting-edge theory—quantum gravity—suggests that even space and time aren't fundamental. They emerge from something deeper: pure information.
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
No.
God is still dead. Theists man...
They used powerful mathematical theorems—including Gödel's incompleteness theorem—to prove that a complete and consistent description of everything requires what they call "non-algorithmic understanding."
Extra no.
The theorem isn't a possible theory. It is fact. What they think they found was already proven to be impossible, theoretically, in any kind of universe. So it's extra funny that they are talking this openly about it, because it means this isn't just regular BS, it is ultra mega turbo BS.
Idiots will still believe it anyway.
Just look at how many people are religious. So yea, people will believe anything for the oddest reasons.