science

22320 readers

220 users here now

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

rule #1: be kind

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

m3t00@lemmy.world

Joleee@lemmy.world

laverabe@lemmy.world

DeadPand@midwest.social

laverabe@lemmy.zip

269

Mathematical proof debunks the idea that the universe is a computer simulation (phys.org)

submitted 2 days ago by technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/science@lemmy.world

130 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] CeffTheCeph@kbin.earth 1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Any viable F_QG must meet four intertwined criteria:

This statement is simply defining the fundamental structure of how a full theory of everything would be composed. A consistent and complete theory must meet all four criteria.

Also the core concept of F_QG is defined in a very hand-wavy way. I'd like to see a concrete example of an existing theory formalized in the way they proposed in the paper.

The above four criteria are how F_QG is defined. The author, in presenting these four criteria, provides two very specific, concrete examples of theories (String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity) while introducing the premise of his argument. He clearly affirms that these theories do meet three of these four criteria but fail on the fourth. If there were an example of a theory that meets all four criteria than that theory would be the theory of everything and the whole issue would be resolved.

It's unclear to me how mathematical derivability from the formal system correspond to how laws of physics apply. Specifically mathematical logic is a discrete process, yet the world described by physics is generally contiguous.

The rest of the paper explains exactly this. Mainly that the only way to satisfy all four criteria is to include non-algorithmic components that bridge the discreteness of math with the observable continuity of physics. The author goes on to describe several examples where this process can apply in modern physics theory.

I do agree that the author is making a dramatic and bold statement regarding a proof of a theory of everything (that being that the theory of everything can never be computational) which requires heavy scrutiny. However, I am in no way an expert in these fields and so I have accept that the journal that published the proof can provide that scrutiny. It is easy to check on the reliability of that journal as a lay person, and in doing so doesn't seem to raise any flags about the validity of the arguments the author is presenting.

[–] someacnt@sh.itjust.works 1 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

It is easy to check on the reliability of that journal as a lay person

Is it, really? How does one check if a journal is one of those rigorous ones, without being an expert in the field? Some journals change from legit to predatory.

[–] CeffTheCeph@kbin.earth 1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_ranking

It isn't a perfect system, but it is a place to start.

[–] someacnt@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 hours ago

There are some journals which are high in the ranking and are suspicious, also even good journals accept faulty papers time to time.

Also, https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=21101250473&tip=sid doesn't seem that great of a journal.

[–] nialv7@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I should've known you weren't genuinely asking a question.... You were just baiting me.

A consistent and complete theory must meet all four criteria.

You are doing what the authors are doing, this itself is an assertion you aren't backing up.

The above four criteria are how F_QG is defined.

No, these are four criteria the authors assertion F_QG must satisfy. For theories that don't satisfy all four criteria, you should still be able to at least formalize them into F_QG as proposed by the authors. Yet they didn't give a concrete example of how a theory may be so formalized.

The rest of the paper explains exactly this.

Uh, what, not? "The rest of the paper" is after they have already reached the point of claiming the Universe can't be simulated. My objection is way before that, which is pointing out how poorly F_QG is defined.

It is easy to check on the reliability of that journal as a lay person, and in doing so doesn’t seem to raise any flags about the validity of the arguments the author is presenting.

Sure, but knowing what I know I can give this paper a bit more scrutiny than a lay person can (ha ha, look at me, I am very smart /s), and this paper doesn't convince me in the slightest.

[–] CeffTheCeph@kbin.earth 2 points 1 day ago

I genuinely was not intending to 'bait' you. You presented an argument saying your knowledge of the subject is more robust than the experts who refereed the paper. Since I am not an expert in the subject and am curious about learning more, I was asking you to guide me in that process with your experience.

I felt that your arguments suggesting that the author is presenting an inconsistent logical proof were not well defended and so I asked for clarification on the points you raised. I am still unclear what you are saying in this statement:

No, these are four criteria the authors assertion F_QG must satisfy.

These are the four criteria that establish how a computational theory is logically defined as a formal system, not an argument. The author makes this clear in addressing the notation being used:

For clarity of notation: ΣQG is the computable axiom set; Ralg comprises the stan- dard, effective inference rules; Rnonalg is the non-effective external truth predicate rule that certifies T -truths; FQG = {LQG, ΣQG, Ralg} denotes the computational core; and MToE = {LQG ∪ {T }, ΣQG ∪ ΣT , Ralg ∪ Rnonalg} denotes the full meta-theory that weds algorithmic deduction to an external truth predicate.

After that paragraph the author uses several very specific examples in modern physics theory describing how the findings apply starting with the paragraph:

Crucially, the appearance of undecidable phenomena in physics already offers empirical backing for MToE. Whenever an experiment or exact model realises a property whose truth value provably eludes every recursive procedure, that property functions as a concrete wit- ness to the truth predicate T (x) operating within the fabric of the universe itself. Far from being a purely philosophical embellishment, MToE thus emerges as a structural necessity forced upon us by the physics of undecidable observables. Working at the deepest layer of description, MToE fuses algorithmic and non-algorithmic modes of reasoning into a sin- gle coherent architecture, providing the semantic closure that a purely formal system FQG cannot reach on its own.

Again, I am trying to approach the authors bold claims with skepticism and scrutiny, not argue with you. But you have to be a little more humble, the paper wasn't published in order to convince you. Just because you weren't convinced doesn't mean that the proof is invalid.