Technology

Dr. Faizal says the same limitation applies to physics. “We have demonstrated that it is impossible to describe all aspects of physical reality using a computational theory of quantum gravity,” he explains. 

“Therefore, no physically complete and consistent theory of everything can be derived from computation alone.”

Your argument is bad and you should feel bad.

Impossible to describe does not mean that it’s not possible to simulate, and impossible is an incredibly strong criterion that sounds quite inaccurate to me. We simulate weather systems all the time, even though the systems are fundamentally chaotic and it’s impossible to forecast accurately. We don’t even know that gravity is quantum, so that’s quite a weird starting point but we’ll ignore that for a second. What is this argument?

This seems like a huge leap to conclude that just because some aspects of our understanding seem like we wouldn’t be able to fully describe them somehow means that the universe can’t be simulated.

“Drawing on mathematical theorems related to incompleteness and indefinability, we demonstrate that a fully consistent and complete description of reality cannot be achieved through computation alone,” says Dr. Faizal.

Who’s to say that reality is completely defined? Perhaps there are aspects to what we consider the real universe that are uncertain. Isn’t that foundational to quantum mechanics?

I highly suggest to listen to this podcast with Damien P. Williams and Paris Marx:

“No, we don't live in a f---ing simulation”

https://ouropinionsarecorrect.libsyn.com/no-were-not-living-in-a-f-ing-simulation

This is such a boring take, I wonder how anyone gets funding or publication making a statement as useless as "see godels incompleteness theorem that proves that there's more truth than what mathematics can prove, therefore reality is not a simulation". Yes, we know, you don't need a PhD to know the major theorem that took down the entire school of logical positivism. The fundamental philosophical error here is assuming that all forms of simulation are computational or mathematical. Counterexample: your dreams are a form of simulation (probably). So I can literally disprove this take in my sleep

I was under the impression that something along these lines was already accepted from the perspective of information theory. I.e. a machine that could simulate the universe must at least be composed of as much information as the universe itself. Given the vastness and complexity of the universe, this would make it rather unlikely that the universe is simulated. Unless you want to view the universe itself as a machine that calculates it's own progression. But that is a bit of a semantic point.

Disclaimer: this is not my area of expertise and I probably got some terms or concepts wrong. I am basing this off of 'The information' by James Gleick

Lol. They forgot that thermodynamics existed? If they remembered they were already done before they started.

This doesn't really address the idea that our simulation is a simplified version of the "real" universe though does it?

Very interesting, although I'm going to withhold judgment pending some serious peer review.

Edit: One person doesn't like peer review to be part of the scientific process.

This is akin to cavemen concluding there's no way an mri scanner could be possible.

Honestly I haven't seen a single article written by someone who actually understands the mathematics involved so I call a huge amount of HORSeSHIT on your headline.