[ad_1]
The idea that reality – the universe, our world and everything we see – is a simulation has fascinated philosophers and scientists for millennia, but new findings show that this theory, despite its immense popularity, is not only flawed but mathematically impossible.
The new study, conducted by researchers at the Okanagan campus of the University of British Columbia, not only debunked the theory that we live inside a supercomputer of an advanced civilization, but proved something even deeper: that the universe is built on a type of understanding that cannot possibly be modeled by any algorithm, no matter how advanced.
Although the findings may seem surprising, we will do our best to explain what the researchers found.
What is simulation hypothesis?
The idea that the reality we experience is a simulation was popularized by films such as math question (1999), but the essence of the idea goes back millennia, to Plato and his allegory of the cave (where prisoners mistake moving shadows for reality).
While interest in the simulation hypothesis has ebbed and flowed over the years, the idea gained a solid following after its release math questionand subsequent scholarly work, notably Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom’s 2003 paper, ‘Are you living in a computer simulation?’.
Even famed astrophysicist and science popularizer Neil deGrasse Tyson has sometimes thrown his weight behind the idea, saying that with enough computational power, it would be possible to create a simulated universe.
The most recent and notable proponent of the simulation hypothesis was none other than Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, who said on the Joe Rogan Podcast in 2018: “If you assume any rate of improvement, Games will eventually become indistinguishable from reality. “We’re probably in a simulation.”
Turns out, they were all wrong.
limitations of simulation
Before jumping to the new study’s conclusions, it is important to understand the basic components of a simulation.
No matter how advanced they are, all computer simulations are built on algorithms, which are essentially like recipes: step-by-step computational rules that create an end-product (for example, the code in a video game).
Therefore, for a computer to be able to simulate the entire universe – including its most fundamental laws – it would need a complete and consistent set of rules programmed into everything.
However, this is not mathematically possible, the researchers found.
To demonstrate this, he portrayed one of the most interesting aspects of reality as we understand it.
platonic sphere
Modern physics has seen several major changes in the way we understand reality – the shift from Sir Isaac Newton’s theory of tangible objects and Newtonian mechanics to Einstein’s theory of relativity was the dominant paradigm of the 20th century.
Today, quantum mechanics has reshaped our understanding, and the cutting-edge theory of quantum gravity reveals that even space and time, long considered pillars of physics, are not fundamental.
Rather, space and time themselves emerge from something much deeper – pure information, which exists in what physicists call the Platonic realm, a mathematical foundation that is more “real” than the physical universe we inhabit.
So, what did the study find?
If it were possible to simulate the entire universe, it would be possible to describe reality through purely computational (algorithmic) rules.
However, the study revealed fundamental mathematical limitations proving that a full description of reality requires a deep, non-algorithmic understanding.
To that end, researchers drew on one of the most powerful theorems in modern mathematics – Gödel’s incompleteness theorem – which proves that any formal system of rules (including the theoretical code of an ideal simulation) will always contain true statements that cannot be proved or derived within the rules of that system.
These true statements that cannot be obtained or proven within the rules of a formal system are what scientists call “non-algorithmic” truths, truths that are “understood” rather than “calculated”.
To demonstrate, let’s take a formal system like the English language. Suppose that a rule of the system or a principle of it is that every declarative sentence must be either true or false.
Now consider the following statement: “This sentence is false”.
If one believes the above statement to be true, then what it says must be true, which leads to the conclusion that the statement is false (contradiction).
Conversely, if one believes the above statement to be false, then what it says must be false, leading to the conclusion that the statement is true (again a contradiction).
The vicious loop this sentence forces you into – if it is false then it must be true, and if it is true then it must be false – is a demonstration of the limitations of the system.
In other words, the statement (“This sentence is wrong”) exists completely within the system: it is written using English language symbols and is grammatically correct. However, when the system tries to use its internal rule and assign a value (true/false) to the statement, it fails again and again.
The real truth about the statement – that it is a contradiction that is undecidable – lies outside the rules of the system, which allow only true or false.
Our little thought experiment on Gödel’s incompleteness theorem is what research has demonstrated at a more fundamental, mathematical level.
He discovered that the deep structure of the universe – the so-called Platonic field of fundamental information from which space and time emerge – is built on a kind of understanding that cannot simply be calculated, but must be understood.
Reality, at its core, is not simply the product of a set of calculations, but also contains “non-algorithmic” truths that must be understood, not calculated.
Commenting on the study’s findings, Dr. Faizal, assistant professor in UBC Okanagan’s Irving Barber Faculty of Science and lead author of the study, said: “It has been suggested that the universe could be simulated. If such a simulation were possible, the simulated universe itself could give rise to life, which in turn could create its own simulation. This recurring possibility makes it highly unlikely that our universe is the original, rather than a simulation contained within another simulation.”
He stressed, “This idea was once thought to be beyond the reach of scientific investigation. However, our recent research has shown that it can in fact be addressed scientifically.”
Dr. Faisal described his team’s main findings: “Drawing on mathematical theorems related to incompleteness and uncertainty, we demonstrate that a completely consistent and complete description of reality cannot be obtained through calculations alone.”
“This requires non-algorithmic understanding, which by definition is beyond algorithmic computation and therefore cannot be simulated. Therefore, this universe cannot be a simulation,” he explained.
Why is this a big deal for science?
Until now, the simulation hypothesis was not considered testable and was often dismissed as pure science fiction.
The study, titled ‘Consequences of uncertainty in physics on the theory of everything’, showed that this can actually be tested using science.
Furthermore, it shows that the holy grail of physics, i.e., a theory of everything – a set of equations that describe all physical phenomena – can never be fully computable; This would require non-algorithmic understanding.
The full published study can be accessed Journal of Holography Applications in Physics,
[ad_2]
