Technology

"Robot, parse this statement, 'this sentence is false'." The robot explodes because it cannot understand a logical contradiction.

I swear, that's what this argument sounds like to me. Also, I'm genuinely confused why people don't think that, if we can simulate randomness with computers in our world with pseudo random number generators, why a higher reality wouldn't be able to simulate what we view as true randomness with a pseudo random number generator or some other device we cannot even begin to comprehend.

Either this paper is bullshit or they're talking about some sort of very specific thing that all these articles are blowing out of proportion.

I don't believe we are in a simulation but I don't believe this paper disproves it. Just like I don't believe in god but I don't believe the question "can god make a rock so big he can't pick it up?" disproves god.

This is exactly the kind of disinformation the simulation would send out to trick us.

Damn

This paper is shit.

https://jhap.du.ac.ir/article_488_8e072972f66d1fb748b47244c4813c86.pdf

They proved absolutely nothing.

For instance, they treat physics as a formal axiomatic system, which is fine for a human model of the physical world, but not for the physical world itself.

You can't say something is "unprovable" and make a logical leap to saying it is "physically undecidable." Gödel-incompleteness produces unprovable sentences inside a formal system, it doesn’t imply that physical observables correspond to those sentences.

I could go on but the paper is 12 short pages of non-sequiturs and logical leaps, with references to invoke formality, it's a joke that an article like this is being passed around and taken as reality.

About that title...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_(mathematics)

Matrix theory is the branch of mathematics that focuses on the study of matrices.

In mathematics, a matrix is a rectangular array of numbers or other mathematical objects with elements or entries arranged in rows and columns

I will prove that we're not in a simulation:

If we're in a simulation then whoever is operating it would not want us to know if we're in a simulation or not.

Anyone trying to check if we're in a simulation or not would be stopped by the operator.

I wasn't stopped by an operator hence there is no operator and we're not in a simulation.

Q.E.D.

Inside a turtle's dream theory still not disproven

Oh those mathers. At least scientists are humble enough to recognize that theorums about the physical world can't be proven.

we are a speck of excrement on the buttplug of reality during a gay porno film.

"If we assume X theorem is true, Y theorem is true, and lemma Z is true, then ..."

This is actually about our models and seeing their incompleteness in a new light, right? I don't think starting from arbitrary axioms and then trying to build reality was about proving qualities about reality. Or am I wrong? Just seems like they're using "simulated reality" as a way to talk about our models for reality. By constructing a "silly" argument about how we can't possibly be in a matrix, they're revealing just how much we're still missing.

That's just what they fucking want you to think.

It's possible that the universe could be simulated by an advanced people with vastly superior technology.

Hard solipsism has no answer and no bearing on our lives, so it's best to not give it another thought.