This journal seems quite suspect.
this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2025
269 points (86.3% liked)
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
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.
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.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Very simple fix for that perceived contradiction: A simulation doesn't need to simulate everything. All it needs to simulate is the inputs and outputs perceived by a single human being, the observer, me.
For me it would be indistinguishable if the universe I am living in is real, if it's a simulation or if it doesn't exist at all and instead only the things I can perceive are simulated.
Simulating the perception of a single human being should be in the reach of our current calculation power.
Kind of how in a computer game only areas around a player are simulated.
"In order to bake an apple pie from scratch, you first have to create the universe"
If you don't create the universe, then you aren't really making an apple pie from scratch. In the same way, what you're referring to doesn't simulate the universe - not in the way that it is simulated in the simulacrum hypothesis.
In the simulacrum hypothesis, the entire universe is simulated. You exist entirely inside the simulation rather than being merely plugged into it, and so do I and so does every other consciousness that exists.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(10 replies)
"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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
It seems to me the philosophical developments in worldview always reflect the spirit of the time.
Just like i've read an interesting article recently (i can't find the link anymore) about how energy is not conserved is cosmology (the expansion of the universe increases the mechanical energy of objects over time) that reflects the spirit of renewable energy (because energy can increase over cosmological time scales).
This is another example of it. For years, people were forced to follow rational rules in their lifes (just like an algorithm) because the industrial revolution has created a clear path forward for humanity how to build machines and operate them to increase our quality of life; now this article says that the universe cannot actually be fully understood as one gigantic algorithm; in other words, we're facing an unemployment phenomenon because we don't have a clear path forward, so it's difficult to employ people for that clear path forward. Therefore, our life is becoming less like an algorithm, a clear step-by-step explanation of what we have to do. :)
Here's my proof....a dust in your eyes. Why? Why would anyone simulate us and give us dust in our eyes? Viruses, I can accept. But dust is not contagious or alive. It just happens to screw with you personally and in particular. Just you. So therefore there's no way we're a simulation.
Alright, come get me, I wanna see the mother ship!
load more comments
(2 replies)
I see reality as a manifestation of a finite state within infinity, creating logic backwards into time trough observation of its quantum state. Even time itself gets recreated in every moment. It's just what's needed for this finite state to be this specific finite state.
Solipsism is an amazing philosophical idea, except for the brain in a vat. And so is the whole simulation theory, except for the artificial part.