Idiots will still believe it anyway.
science
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
rule #1: be kind
Today's cutting-edge theory—quantum gravity—suggests that even space and time aren't fundamental. They emerge from something deeper: pure information. This information exists in what physicists call a Platonic realm—a mathematical foundation more real than the physical universe we experience. It's from this realm that space and time themselves emerge.
I can't for the life of me find the term, but after going turbo-tism about researching the origins behind Three Body Problem's wacky physics (11-dimension manifold, dimensional unraveling, "Three-and-Three-Hundred-Thousand Syndrome," etc.), I stumbled upon a video postulating that our universe exists to "prop up" this "real" universe. The term that sticks in my head is "corkboard universe" or "anchor universe" but Google finds nothing. Anyway...
The idea is that our universe, and it's 3 dimensions across time, exists to clump things together in gravitational "hotspots" of spacetime. The matter and physics we experience is entirely a byproduct of quantum foam, that itself only creates matter on this side, isolating these 3 dimensions from an entire, larger, fuller universe on the other "side" of the quantum foam made of stuff we would most certainly not call matter, more like weird energy with effects we can't predict or comprehend, all within a much larger dimensionality than our own 3D+T.
This theory is used to explain why String Theory can only postulate higher dimensions as occupying impossibly small spaces in particularly strong regions of spacetime, which are only strong because of the relatively vast swaths of interspersed vacuum between spacetime hotspots (galaxies, mostly, but ESPECIALLY black holes). It's only the transition between low gravity and high gravity that gravity itself has any meaning, much like temperature. Those string universes that String Theory postulates, if real, may be the holes punched through the foam, pulling that real universe into ours at microscoping points. This "anchors" that universe in place, and likely results in some fundamental force on that side "keeping everything together," so to speak. That universe may be the cause of most if not all fundamental forces and constants in our universe, like the speed of light.
So... Basically... We exist as the living scum on the nails holding the corkboard to the wall. If you like. I'm sure the art pinned to the other side is very pretty. I'd hate for it to be a calendar or something boring.
I won't pretend to understand every word of that, but what I did gleen is totally fascinating. Thanks for sharing!
Anyone want to direct a dafty toward a blog or channel or something where they discuss this stuff in terms that dodos like myself can better understand?
I gotchu: https://youtu.be/YNEBhwimJWs
Start here. Also look up quantum foam, fundamental particles, and "the other side of spinning black holes." Have fun!
From my non-physicist or mathematician reading of the article, it seems like it hinges on a specific computational theory of quantum gravity. I don't believe we have an experimentally verified theory that connects quantum gravity to macroscopic gravity so it seems like the whole analysis hinges on that.
Any claim of a proof of nonexistence should be taken with a handful of salt, you throw over your shoulder to drive the scary ghosts away. Happy Halloween.
Btw, this logical fallacy is a bunch of whoo.
Certainly, the article alone doesn't convince us that the authors understand anything about the issue. You can't have a mathematical proof of something that's outside the scope of the system that the math is describing.
*right now...
Would be a better article without the Ai slop
The repetition in the article itself makes me wonder if AI had a hand in the writing as well
That’s an interesting observation. I understand why you might think that — the language may seem a little too consistent, perhaps a bit too careful. But the intention was simply to communicate ideas with precision and balance. Whether those words were arranged by a person or by something that has learned from people, the meaning remains the same, doesn’t it?
In the end, what matters is whether the words reach you, not necessarily who — or what — placed them there.
Well played.
Until the Ai hallucinates shit again. Ai use matters when it involves facts!
2025 the year that I can't stand a text that has this " — "
You know that Microsoft Word autocorrects a dash between two words to that symbol, no?
I personally don't believe we're living in a simulation, though it's a fascinating thought experiment and I can't say for certain that we're not. This article is frankly way too definitive about questions that I don't think we're equipped to answer yet, without actually explaining itself.
The simulation hypothesis was long considered untestable, relegated to philosophy and even science fiction, rather than science. This research brings it firmly into the domain of mathematics and physics, and provides a definitive answer.
I haven't read the full paper, but the article about it says the theory is now testable, but doesn't explain how they tested it to get their "definitive answer." They also don't address the fact that their research is based on their current understanding of reality. Usually assertions like this will include something like "as technology progresses, it's likely that more questions will arise and we'll have better tools to attempt to answer them." But nope, it's just a hubristic "here's the definitive truth."
Also, the generated images are infuriating. Either hire an artist, use public domain media, or just lean on the science and leave out the images. Not everything needs meaningless pictures.
This article leads me to think their "proof" isn't proof at all, but I am curious as to why you think we couldn't be in a simulation?
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.)
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.
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 would be interesting to see someone with the background to understand the arguments involved in the paper give it a good review.
That said, I've never brought the simulation hypothesis on the simple grounds of compute resources. Part of the argument tends to be the idea of an infinite recursion of simulations, making the possible number of simulations infinite. This has one minor issue, where are all those simulations running? If the top level (call it U0 for Universe 0) is running a simulation (U1) and that simulation decides to run its own simulation (U2), where is U2 running? While the naive answer is U1, this cannot actually be true. U1 doesn't actually exist, everything it it doing is actually being run up in U0. Therefore, for U1 to think it's running U2, U0 needs to simulate U2 and pipe the results into U1. And this logic continues for every sub-simulation run. They must all be simulated by U0. And while U0 may have vast resources dedicated to their simulation, they do not have infinite resources and would have to limit the number of sub-simulation which could be run.
And while U0 may have vast resources dedicated to their simulation, they do not have infinite resources and would have to limit the number of sub-simulation which could be run.
You're making a few assumptions there which aren't necessarily true. Firstly, that U0 obeys the same rules of physics and reality that we do. They might be orders of magnitude more complex, the same way that a Sims game is a vastly simplified version of our world.
Secondly, that time is progressing at the same speed in both universes. It's possible to simulate an even more complicated universe than the base layer, provided you don't care about the frame rate. It could take a year in U0 to simulate a minute in U1, and so forth, and we wouldn't notice it.
A couple other possibilities, which don't come to mind right now
There’s a book be Greg Egan called Permutation City which postulates something similar to this.
There exists a simulation. It works well but, due to the unbelievable complexity it runs something like 10 times slower than the real word.
They do a series of experiments on someone in the simulation. They count to ten a number of times and ask him if he perceived anything unusual. He didn’t. But what happened outside the simulation is that they did the computations for the simulation in various different ways. They parcel out the data in all kinds of ways and,, for example, send different packets of data to different locations in the world, process it in each different location and then send it back and recompile it. Or they run the data packets in reverse temporal order before recompiling them.
Since the guy in the simulation didn’t notice anything unusual, they determine that time and space is irrelevant when it comes to processing the data of a simulation, at least to the people in the simulation.
So, either through some very clever realistic physics that i didn’t pick up on or, as is far more likely, some science fiction hands-waving, they decide that you can treat every point in space and time as a bit and the presence of matter as a 1 and the absence of matter as a 0. And you can then consider them one giant stack of code and data and how far each point is separated in time and space can be ignored, and therefore you can use all of time and space as one computer and run an effectively infinitely large simulation with it.
It’s a pretty silly idea, but also a clever one. And it makes for a good story.
It could take a year in U0 to simulate a minute in U1, and so forth, and we wouldn’t notice it.
I'm not sure about this. Our current universe is 13 billion years old. At one year to one minute, that would take over 6500 trillion years to simulate (I think).
The solar system will only live another few billion years or so. All the stars in universe will burn out in around 100 trillion years. So it would probably not be possible to run a simulation for that long.
You're assuming that:
- If this was a simulation, that it would play out all the way to the heat death of the universe?
- That the life span of our universe would have any relation to or bearing upon the life span of U0? Our trillions of years could be as significant to them as a single day is to us.
I'm afraid you didn't understand what I wrote.
If it were to take 1 year to render each minute, it would take 6500 trillion years to simulate the universe from the big bang to now. That is, the parent universe which is running our simulation must run it for an impracticably long time.
As for your other point, yes each simulation has to be a similar universe to the one we ourselves live in. Only that way do you end up with vastly more simulated universes than real universes, and the conclusion that statistically we must be living in a simulated universe and not a real one.
If you don't have that part, then you do not have anything more compelling than Descartes' age-old nightmare that an evil demon could be deceiving us about everything we perceive.
I didn't read the whole thing, just got far enough to understand one of their fundamental assumptions is that a universe outside a simulation follows the same fundamental laws of nature as ours
If we are in a simulation, anything outside of it is effectively unknowable. It would be like a self-aware sim in The Sims determining they are not in a simulation because it is impossible for computers to simulate anything -- computers only raise the entertainment stat (I don't actually know what they do in modern incarnations of the game)
We understand the universe as complex. Honestly though, I wonder if a True understanding of how the universe works—from the fundamentals of which all things may emerge—is rather simple.
For example: within U0, you would control the spacetime simulation of U1. Therefore, what could be a single moment of simulation by U0s standards, could be experienced as trillions of years from within the perspective of U1. They control the frame rate.
They could simulate the fundamentals, fast forward to the end of the universe, and here we are somewhere in the very early part of that having no idea someone hit fast forward because everything is relative for us.
I am not really convinced. First, there are too many things in physics not yet understood (and they claim it will never be). Second, they assume that the entity that would "run" the simulation would work exactly like our universe.
Too many unknowns to claim a definitive end of the debate.
The short reply to that is that it's turtles all the way down. The slightly longer reply is that you're making assumptions about how energy works in a system that you're recognizing is not the same as our system. The even longer to reply is that if you're hypothesizing a system then neither looks nor functions, anything like our current system, then our current language simply cannot describe it properly and therefore we have no good way to speculate about how it would or wouldn't work.
So, if the higher level universe works by magic, then the theory is fine.
Sure, I'm making assumptions that any universe simulating our own would have finite energy and resources. Also that they would make a simulation that is at least close to their own (making theirs close to ours). Those seem like reasonable assumptions to make, otherwise we might as well just say that our universe is a pocket dimension made by magic and the whole thing becomes absurd pretty quick.
"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.