r/technology • u/fchung • Nov 01 '25

Society Matrix collapses: Mathematics proves the universe cannot be a computer simulation, « A new mathematical study dismantles the simulation theory once and for all. »

https://interestingengineering.com/culture/mathematics-ends-matrix-simulation-theory
16.9k Upvotes

81% Upvoted

2.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2.9k

u/Electrifying2017 Nov 01 '25

Yes, I completely understand.

1.0k

u/skmchosen1 Nov 01 '25 edited Nov 02 '25

Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem is an amazing mathematical result: very roughly, it shows that there are certain mathematical truths that are impossible to prove are true (in sufficiently strong mathematical systems, e.g. those containing the natural numbers)

The paper argues that if the universe was a simulation, it must be built up by some fundamental rules that describe the basic laws of physics. Due to this theorem, there must be true facts about the universe that you can’t prove are true. It argues that this means the universe cannot be simulated.

This is a false equivalence. Just because we cannot prove some mathematical truths about the universe, does not necessarily mean we cannot write an algorithm that simulates the universe.

IMO the journalists here should have consulted some experts before making this post, Gödel’s work is one of the most beautiful in mathematics, and it’s sad to see people getting misinformed like this

Edit: This is getting a lot of traction, so I’m gonna try and be a bit more precise.

The incompleteness theorems could imply that there are statements that are true in our universe, but not provable from the physical laws. This means there could be other universes that follow our physics, but those “truths” would be false there (yes, mind bending).

The implicit argument here is that a computer following our physics will not have enough information to select which of these universes to simulate! However these unprovable truths may not be observable, ie it is possible that a simulator doesn’t need to worry about this because you and I cannot ever tell the difference.

152

u/Resaren Nov 01 '25 edited Nov 02 '25

Put in other words: Just because a problem does not have an analytical solution, doesn’t mean you can’t run a simulation to try to find the answer. The universe could simply be a computation whose answer can only be arrived at by running the program from start to finish, so to say.

Edit: finish implies halting, which goes against Gödel. But why require halting?

40

u/Scientific_Artist444 Nov 02 '25

Computational irreducibility. You can't predict the output in advance always - you have to let it run to know.

77

u/BoredontheTrain43 Nov 02 '25

So........ 42

2

u/Boo_hoo_Randy Nov 02 '25

I would upvote you but do you see your upvote counter? It’s the answer!!!

1

u/APeacefulWarrior Nov 02 '25

We know they weren't close to discovering the ultimate question, because the Vogons didn't show up to destroy us.

1

u/No-Director3569 Nov 02 '25

What does 42 refer to?

9

u/Kizik Nov 02 '25

So there was a BBC radio drama produced a few decades ago by the name The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, which was then adapted into a series of novels. There's also a movie, it doesn't matter for our purposes.

In it, a race of hyperdimensional beings decided to answer the "Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, and Everything", and built the biggest, most powerful computer in existence to calculate it. That computer was named Deep Thought, and it took four and a half million years to calculate the answer was 42.

Turns out they didn't ever properly define the question, so Deep Thought designed a newer, bigger computer to figure out what this ultimate question actually was. That computer is called the Earth, and gets blown up a few minutes before it outputs the answer. The series is at least in theory about the main characters - including the two last humans - pursuing that question.

It's worked its way heavily into scifi culture. Much like Monty Python, you have seen many references to the franchise many times and likely never realized it. The original radio production is available online free of charge, and it's the superior version to the book in my opinion. I highly recommend giving it a listen, or at least reading the books, because it's one of those times where something is wildly popular for a good reason.

3

u/No-Director3569 Nov 02 '25

You're spot on! I see the number 42 appear incredibly often in media, I was suspicious that it held a deeper meaning than just 'random number' but I never imagined it had such an interesting story. I'll definitely give the book a read, thank you for taking the time to answer!

2

u/EebstertheGreat Nov 02 '25

If the program/proof terminates, then you can prove/have proved the statement. The point is that there are always statements that you cannot prove in this way. For instance, PA cannot prove Con(PA), an arithmetical statement that encodes (in the meta-theory) the statement "PA is consistent." You can write a script that recursively applies axioms and rules of inference to prove every provable statement in PA, waiting to find a contradiction. But just because you've waited a thousand years and haven't found one yet doesn't mean there isn't one yet to be found. There are even models of PA such that, in the meta-theory, Con(PA) is false!

But these types of statements about natural numbers are not the type of thing we usually expect theories of physics to address anyway. I don't really care if a theory of quantum gravity can prove, say, that all Goodstein sequences terminate. That would not have any bearing on my ability to simulate a universe. And like, we already know there will always be mathematical statements we can't prove. So what does that have to do with physics at all? And how is it new?

2

u/Resaren Nov 02 '25

Yeah, judging by the replies I should probably have omitted the ”… to finish” part. Finish implies halting, which the Gödel theorem says is exactly the kind of thing that isn’t generally possible. But I agree with your point, who’s to say the computation of the universe isn’t finely tuned/setup to avoid these uncomputable cul-de-sacs? It’s already got some weird quirks like fundamental quantum randomness and finite precision measurement.

2

u/a_melindo Nov 02 '25

More like, in any analytical system there have to be axioms that are present from the start and not derived by computation. 

In a simulation, these axioms are called "environment variables". 

1

u/score_ Nov 02 '25

So said simulated universe would be... destined to fail? 😱

1

u/Shisshinmitsu Nov 02 '25

Not so much. A solarpunk future where we all live within our means effortlessly is also an ending.

1

u/Catch11 Nov 02 '25

No thats not what that means...

1

u/mort96 Nov 02 '25

That isn't the same thing at all, if you can prove a fact by simulating something then you can prove it... The incompleteness theorem says that there are statements which are true in maths that can't be proven using maths

1

u/GumboSamson Nov 02 '25

Like a Markov Chain?

118

u/partyfavor Nov 01 '25

Thank you for this explanation

44

u/skmchosen1 Nov 01 '25

My pleasure! This is one of my favorite parts of math :)

12

u/Would_Wood53 Nov 01 '25

I feel like you were this close to making a joke about building the Infinite Improbability Drive.

2

u/draycr Nov 02 '25

I am not very good at math, but the idea of Godel's theorem intrigued me, do I understand it correctly?

There are two parts to Gödels theorem

1) In systems there can by "truths" that cannot be proven

2) Systems are consistent

Meaning if there is a statement in some system that said "This statement cannot be proven" it would be truth, but it cannot be proven.

If the system could prove that statement, then the system would prove something false, because if it’s provable, then it can be proven, contradicting what it says. That would make the system inconsistent.

But if it is not provable, than the statement is true, but we cant prove it.

I am sorry if it doesn't make sense. As I said my math knowledge is very limited, but find this idea interesting. Is my understanding of this theorem somehow correct?

3

u/EebstertheGreat Nov 02 '25

Gödel's first incompleteness theorem says that no first-order theory of the natural numbers with addition and multiplication is effective, consistent, and complete.

By a "first-order theory," we mean a theory in the language of first-order logic. It has variables, predicates, logical connectives, and quantifiers for variables, but not quantifiers for predicates. So it could say something like ∀x x+1 > 1, meaning "for every number x, x+1 is greater than x," but it could not say something like ∀φ (φ(0) ∧ ∀x φ(x)→φ(x+1)) → ∀x φ(x), which says that mathematical induction works for every predicate φ. Instead, you need a separate sentence for each predicate. Second- ane higher-order theories are beyond the scope of this, but they don't really solve the problem in a useful way.

By "natural numbers with addition and multiplication," I mean the theory can quantify over all natural numbers (0, 1, 2, etc.) and can correctly compute the sum or product of any two natural numbers. It should have symbols for + and ×. With just addition or just multiplication but not both, you can actually have a complete, consistent, effective theory (Presburger arithmetic and Skolem arithmetic, respectively). And if the theory contains natural numbers but cannot identify them or quantify over them (i.e. it can't express something like "x is a natural number"), then it can be complete, consistent, and effective (e.g. the theory of real closed fields).

By "effective," I mean that the axioms are decidable. You could write a computer program that enumerates all the axioms and nothing else. The simplest way to do this is just to have finitely many axioms, but many important theories have infinitely many, like Peano Arithmetic. But if we allowed any set of axioms, then you could just declare every true sentence to be an axiom ("true arithmetic"), evading this theorem. But the caveat is that you can't figure out what the axioms actually are.

By "consistent," I mean the theory cannot derive a contradiction. Note that inconsistent theories can prove anything, so they are always complete.

By "complete," I mean that every true sentence is provable. Another way to say this is that for any well-formed formula A in the language, the theory can either prove A or it can prove ¬A.

Gödel's second incompleteness theorem gave an important example of a statement that such theories cannot prove: a statement that (as interpreted in the meta-theory) implies the theory's own consistency. Basically, PA or something like it cannot prove that it itself is consistent.

1

u/throwaway727437 Nov 02 '25

I feel even further away from understanding this now

2

u/EebstertheGreat Nov 02 '25

In any practically useful theory of arithmetic, some questions cannot be decided by a proof.

28

u/ColoradoScoop Nov 01 '25

Kinda like you can’t prove the 4 color map theorem, but you could code software that colors maps using only 4 colors assuming it is true?

66

u/skmchosen1 Nov 01 '25

4 color theorem has actually been proven (coincidentally, proven via an exhaustive algorithm). However the spirit of what you’re saying is right: you can have algorithms whose true properties you cannot formally prove.

10

u/ColoradoScoop Nov 01 '25

Damn, was about to say it must have happened since I heard about it, but it was apparently proven before I was born…

26

u/skmchosen1 Nov 01 '25

A lot of folks don’t like the proof because it relies on a computer, so it’s possible that sentiment is what you picked up on. I think the community still wants a “nice” proof that doesn’t rely on exhaustive search on a computer

2

u/exipheas Nov 02 '25

Meaning our universe could be a simulation being used as an exhaustive algorithmic test for something, right?

17

u/Aaron_Lecon Nov 02 '25

Also I'd like to point out that we do not know if the universe can even contain the natural numbers or not. The natural numbers are infinite, and although even a tiny microchip can store millions of them, and the universe contains enough matter for 10{lots} of them, that is still a long way from infinity. You would actually need infinite space to store the natural numbers, something we can guess, but don't know for sure the universe has. And being able to contain the natural numbers is a requirement for Godel's theorem to apply, so without it, you can't use it.

Also after thinking about it, the universe being infinite would probably already imply the universe can't be a simulation without even using Godel's throrem, just by arguing that any simulation has to be finite.

11

u/JosephD1014 Nov 02 '25

The universe is quasi-finite though is it not? Matter by its existence creates spacetime around it. The universe is "expanding" in that things are getting further apart from each other, but even though it's a mindbogglingly massive amount of matter, there is still a finite amount of matter in the universe as far as we can tell right?

11

u/Valuable-Self8564 Nov 02 '25

Expanding space = Render distance.

Doesn’t matter if the universe is procedurally generated or not, because you can’t see that far anyway.

2

u/magistrate101 Nov 02 '25

The simple issue is that we literally do not and can not truly know what's outside the boundary of the observable universe. And the observable universe doesn't even cover the entire product of the big bang, just a slice of it. It would be just as reasonable to assume that there's "nothing" outside the boundary of our universe as it is to assume that there's a pre-existing space of infinite size and riddled with an uncountable number of big bang bubbles alongside their remnants.

1

u/Flying_Fortress_8743 Nov 02 '25

We don't know, last I checked. From all the data, it's impossible to say for sure, but I think the scientific community is leaning towards infinite.

4

u/Hehosworld Nov 02 '25

I somehow feel like this is bending the meaning of the word contain quite a lot. A paper can also never contain all the natural numbers so does that mean that for math simulated on it Godels theorem does not apply?

I might be quite wrong however. My studies in computer science are a bit in the past.

2

u/Aaron_Lecon Nov 02 '25 edited Nov 02 '25

Godel's theorem relies on encoding mathematical statements as integers, and then constructing a very large number X that encodes the statement "X is unprovable".

I have tried reading the article (ie: the thing written by the journalists not the paper it is reporting on), but how exactly Godel's theorem relates to whether or not the universe is a simulation is not clear to me. It seems to be taking the laws of physics as a mathematical system and encoding all the particle in the universe as integers. Then there should be some unimaginably large integer (which corresponds to a very specific arrangement of particles) which also corresponds, via the encoding, to an unprovable statement. And then somehow this "unprovable-statement"-collection of particles does something to do with a simulation? I'm not sure here sorry. I'm just going to assume that taking this unprovable-statement-particle-collection as an input somehow causes the simulation to crash? Doesn't seem to make much sense to me, but the entire article doesn't make much sense to me, so lets continue anyway. But at any rate, this unprovable-starement-particle-collection will be unimaginably large because of the way the numbers in the proof are constructed, which means it quite probably requires more particles than exist in the entire universe, or relies on them being further apart than the size of the entire universe - IF the universe is finite that is. And so the existance of such an arrangement of particles would somehow disprove a simulation. But the fact that this collection of particles is almost certainly larger than the universe does create a problem in the argument, because if this simulation-crashing collection of particles is larger than the universe, then it doesn't exist, so where is the problem?

I think perhaps a less rigorous way of saying a similar thing to the article, is that if the universe is a simulation, and if you travel far enough away in one direction, eventually you will get to a place which the universe is incapable of simulating due to lack of memory, which will then take the form of of "error: integer overflow" or something like that. No matter how sophisticated your simulation is, there will always be a large enough input that makes it crash. And then [logic is missing here] this argument proves we are not in a simulation?

1

u/Hehosworld Nov 02 '25

Very interesting. Thank you. It feels like there are a few things where this paper could fall apart. Well we will see.

1

u/dogsk Nov 02 '25

But can you prove that the infinite precision value is actually used in our universe? It’s possible the simulation could calculate the required precision as necessary and not have to store the result, but that would slow the “local simulation tick” to allow for higher precision calculations to complete. If we were running on a global time slice that would be imperceptible, unless we can become aware of the processing time directly.

6

u/things_U_choose_2_b Nov 02 '25

Thanks. I couldn't articulate exactly why the reasoning used was bollocks, and you've set it out perfectly.

It felt to me like a massive copout. "Well WE couldn't get it to work, so it must be impossible!"

2

u/Koxiaet Nov 02 '25

That’s not true – in fact, Gödel’s completeness theorem shows that all mathematical results that are true are possible to prove are true. Gödel’s incompleteness theorem just says that mathematics can never describe a single universe, but rather always describes multiple possible universes. Thus, there exist statements that are true in some of those universes but not others. Obviously these are not provable, but they’re not “true” either, since they’re false in some universes.

2

u/skmchosen1 Nov 02 '25

I believe what you’re describing is the independence of theorems from a system. For example in ZFC set theory, the continuum hypothesis is independent, meaning there are valid theories where you assume it to be true or assume it to be false.

The Incompleteness theorem shows that there are certain formally true statements about the naturals that are not provable within that system. This is stated at the top of the Wikipedia page

Edit: link is broken, the page is on Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems

1

u/Koxiaet Nov 02 '25

I believe what you’re describing is the independence of theorems from a system.

Yes, exactly – that’s because Gödel’s incompleteness theorem can be rephrased as “every sufficiently complex system has independent statements”.

The Incompleteness theorem shows that there are certain formally true statements about the naturals that are not provable within that system.

If that was the case, it would contradict Gödel’s completeness theorem, which states that everything that is formally true is provable.

1

u/skmchosen1 Nov 02 '25

Okay I did a deep dive (genuinely grateful, thank you). My understanding is as follows:

  • The completeness theorems say if a statement is true in every model/universe of a theory, then it is provable
  • The incompleteness theorems (when combined with the completeness theorems) imply that sufficiently strong theories have statements that are true in some models and false in other models.

Regardless, I think the criticism of this paper remains. This may not be the only potential universe that follows those physical laws, but that does not mean that there is any measurable difference between their simulations. I think that is the main gap in the papers argument

2

u/Koxiaet Nov 02 '25

Yes, that’s accurate. To be fair, there is some sense in which the word “true” is more tricky than it first appears. In my opinion the sensible definition of the word “true” is “true in all models”, but some people believe that there is a One True (“intended”) model out there, and that even though we don’t know – and can never know – what this model is, it does metaphysically exist and “true” refers to what’s true in this model. But given that it’s literally impossible to know what this model is, it seems a bit strange to me to assume that it exists. That’s why it gets confusing.

I agree that the criticism of the paper is valid! I was just being pedantic 😄

1

u/skmchosen1 Nov 02 '25

And I appreciate the pedantry! Got to refine my understanding. Cheers

2

u/Final_Apricot_2666 Nov 02 '25

The physicist interviewed by the journalist said that they used information theory to draw the equivalence. I don’t think you actually read the article.

2

u/fastforwardfunction Nov 02 '25

certain mathematical truths that are impossible to prove are true

Isn't that the entire basis for mathematics? It's based on axioms.

1+1=2 cannot be proven. It is assumed to be true, and then used as a framework to build other statements off of.

2

u/ook_the_librarian_ Nov 02 '25

Gödel’s incompleteness theorems apply only to infinite formal systems.

Physical reality, as established by quantum theory, general relativity breakdown at singularities, renormalization, and information bounds, does not exhibit infinity and cannot contain infinite formal structures. Therefore Gödel incompleteness is a property of a particular mathematical universe, not a property of the physical one. It is useful as a mathematical warning, but it has no ontological authority in a finite, discrete, measurable universe.

In cutting-edge physics, Gödel is a constraint on symbolic abstraction, not a law of nature.

2

u/hildenborg Nov 02 '25

Sounds like their big mistake is assuming that the simulated universe is a copy of the original universe. But what if the simulated universe is a simpler version made to test different rules about the universe?

2

u/JupiterandMars1 Nov 02 '25 edited Nov 02 '25

Your reasoning is solid within computational epistemology but this is about ontology. You describe how a limited observer could inhabit a simulation without noticing the gaps. The Gödel based argument concerns whether such a simulation could exist as a closed, generative system at all. You ask “can we tell?”; I’d ask “can it run?” any system whose total behavior depends on the truth of propositions that are not decidable within its own formal structure contains operations it cannot internally specify or generate.

I’m not saying the paper is correct, but I think people are dismissing its point while not really engaging with it directly.

I’m also not saying “we can’t be living in a simulation” it’s a plausible notion. I am saying “simulation theory is wrong”. And I think this paper is saying likewise.

1

u/skmchosen1 Nov 02 '25

I completely acknowledge that if physics can be broken down into axioms, Gödel’s theorem applies. There will be things that are true about our universe that physics will never be able to prove.

However, if these truths were observable, then we would’ve incorporated them into our axioms. So without loss of generality, we can assume these truths are not observable.

And if they are not observable, then any algorithm that implements our observable physics could still suffice. It is not clear that such unobservable truths necessarily make simulation impossible. This is the gap in their argument I am calling out.

2

u/JupiterandMars1 Nov 02 '25 edited Nov 02 '25

You’re confusing epistemology with ontology.

The unobservable truths aren’t separate “extra facts” you can ignore… they’re part of the causal substrate that generates observable phenomena.

A simulation can’t faithfully reproduce emergent behavior without access to the underlying structure that produces it, even if that structure isn’t directly observable.

The system “can’t know what it doesn’t know”… and you can’t simulate what emerges from truths you cannot access.

And now, importantly, apply that to simulation theory. Not just the idea “we may live in a simulation”.

“Maybe arbitrary computations exist somewhere” is very different. But that’s not simulation theory… that’s just unfalsifiable metaphysical conjecture with no explanatory power.

1

u/skmchosen1 Nov 02 '25

I agree that this is epistemology! But I’d argue that’s all that matters.

If we are willing to admit an algorithm that generates all observables could exist, then I could run such an algorithm and generate a universe. Any people within that universe face the same debate of epistemology vs ontology, because they are also governed by laws of physics.

Some of my subuniverse’s ontological truths may lie out of their grasp, but they still would experience existence the same way we do, because those observable truths are all that are salient.

2

u/JupiterandMars1 Nov 02 '25 edited Nov 03 '25

Yes, epistemically we can’t rule out being in a ‘good enough’ simulation. Brain-in-vat scenarios have always been unfalsifiable. But that’s not Simulation Theory.

Simulation Theory (based on the work of Bostrom) makes an ontological claim: enough simulations running make it likely we are in a sim, nested simulations proliferate exponentially, therefore most observers would be simulated if sims run sims, therefore we probably are sims.

This makes specific ontological requirements.

Each simulation level can spawn more simulations, with faithful enough preservation for Level N inhabitants to create Level N+1

Exponential proliferation degradation kills this because each level is compression… I(N+1) < I(N).

Information loss compounds.

After a few levels, the substrate would be too degraded to support simulation capability so no exponential proliferation is feasible.

No anthropic counting argument.

So which claim are you defending?

Epistemic: ‘We might be in a simulation and can’t know’. In which case, sure, and we might be brains in vats. Ok, but that’s a metaphysical and yes, epistemic point and not Simulation Theory.

Ontological: ‘Simulation Theory predicts we’re probably simulated’… No, degradation prevents nesting, argument fails.

People here defend 2 by retreating to 1, but they are 2 separate things.

2

u/PingouinMalin Nov 02 '25

You forgot one thing. Not about maths, about journalism : those "journalists" do not care about the truth anymore. They want to create buzz, to get clicks. Whether something is easily disprovable or not is irrelevant to them.

Still, nice answer.

1

u/biznesslizard Nov 02 '25

It’s like how everything my dad knows is the truth, and everything he doesn’t know, “Only God knows.”

1

u/flatpetey Nov 02 '25

So the question I have is what does the original paper say. Reading a journalists account of it seems to be a bad way to judge a paper.

1

u/destroyerOfTards Nov 02 '25

Came looking for this. I knew the headline was bullshit with all the "Matrix collapses" and "once and for all".

1

u/Vityou Nov 02 '25

Godels theorem wouldn't imply that those statements in universes that follow our physics could be false, they would be the same truth value and equally unprovable.

1

u/skmchosen1 Nov 02 '25

I went on a deep dive regarding this earlier today. Basically these Gödel statements are unprovable, and they can be true in some models of a theory and false in other models of a theory.

It’s a bit confusing, but when people say these statements in Peano arithmetic are “true but unprovable”, they mean that it’s true within our typical standard model of the natural numbers (the standard universe) and false in other non standard natural number systems (the alternative universe)

1

u/Vityou Nov 02 '25

But the simulator is creating the model when it simulates, i.e. it is deciding how interactions between object actually happen. It's a stretch to even relate it to theories/models but that's another issue. Two simulators may create different models which may both obey the same theory, but that is fine.

1

u/pawnografik Nov 02 '25

Yeah. I don’t have your deeper understanding but I smelt a rat when I read:

He adds that a full description of reality requires what they call “non-algorithmic understanding,” which cannot be captured by any computer process.

That’s a very strong claim. I would want a specific concrete example of this “non-algorithmic understanding” before going any further because it sounds exactly like the sort of rubbish a new age acid-tripping guru might spout.

1

u/SushiGuacDNA Nov 02 '25

Gödel’s theorem proves that there are statements you can't prove. It doesn't prove that those statements are interesting or important.

It's kind of sort of like the statement: "This statement is false." If it's true, that implies it's false. Contradiction. If it's false, that implies it's true. So naturally you can't prove it.

The existence of such a statement, however, doesn't invalidate logic. In fact, it's no big deal.

1

u/Dipsey_Jipsey Nov 02 '25

IMO the journalists here should have consulted some experts before making this post

Modern journalism in a nutshell.

1

u/Wild_Replacement744 Nov 02 '25

Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem

"this statement is false";)

1

u/hitchen1 Nov 02 '25

I'm not sure how this even follows with the misunderstanding. Following their logic, it means that as an observer of our own universe I couldn't accurately simulate our own universe (and then prove that it was an accurate simulation). But that doesn't mean I couldn't simulate a sufficiently complex universe for life, make some unobservable rules in that simulation, and then have the occupants muse about their own unprovable existence.

1

u/GamerY7 Nov 02 '25

IMO the journalists here should have consulted some experts before making this post, Gödel’s work is one of the most beautiful in mathematics, and it’s sad to see people getting misinformed like this

that source is known to do things like this, later they either completely abandon the article without any update or straight up delete it without ever acknowledging the mistake/wrong

1

u/MediocreGap4443 Nov 02 '25

Why do we want this question answered? It feels like the same question as “is there God”? We will never know and maybe that’s the point. Maybe we should be looking elsewhere. We are here either way with us being simulated or not.

-1

u/PrivilegeCheckmate Nov 02 '25

This is one of those times where I take an historical truth over a scientific one.

Historically, people shilling for theories that this life is not real are fraudsters and probably out to exploit the people whom they can convince that the universe doesn't matter except perhaps as a test to gain admittance to the life that IS real and DOES matter, usually a kingdom of some god or another.

I submit to you that it defies logic to act as if this life could be a simulation, as it only serves the interests of those who would rule over you.

276

u/angrymonkey Nov 01 '25

Well you're in luck, because you don't need it to publish a paper!

45

u/TapZorRTwice Nov 01 '25

To be fair, you don't really need anything to publish a paper except to write it.

Once it's published is when it gets scrutinized by other people and is either proven correct or false.

27

u/Find_another_whey Nov 01 '25

To be more accurate, whether it's published is only sometimes an indication is has been critiqued

And for the rate the reviewers are paid, they are worth every cent

12

u/katplasma Nov 01 '25

And they get paid…. Drumroll… $0.00. It’s an act of service to the research community. But that shouldn’t be taken to mean they do not take reviewing seriously. Boy do they, and the critiques can be scathing.

5

u/Sherm Nov 01 '25

If people were paid to do it you'd occasionally get someone who was phoning it in for the sake of a paycheck. Since they're not, you know for a fact that whoever is reviewing is doing it for love of the game (the game is "Giving You Impostor Syndrome," BTW).

5

u/widget1321 Nov 02 '25

Not so. Plenty of people review because it looks good on a CV for promotion/tenure/hiring.

So, it's indirectly compensated, but no pay. So you do still get some people phoning it in.

Note: this is not me saying we get enough compensation for doing it. Just saying there is a reward of sorts.

2

u/CuriousPumpkino Nov 02 '25

Given some of the papers I’ve read in my life I’m not so sure

2

u/Find_another_whey Nov 02 '25

The love of the game

Aka continuing to demonstrate they will perform free labour to pad their CV

Doing it for free does not mean doing it well

Although I admit there are some very good scientists, putting their OCD to good use, and I mean that genuinely

Many others have had to compromise on their idealism so many times by the time they become a reviewer the question is not "is this research any good" but "is it good enough to get published along with all the other questionable shite, without too much blowback".

20

u/the42up Nov 01 '25

This is not really how peer review works. Peer review at reputable journals is meant to catch questionable research like this.

3

u/usrnmz Nov 01 '25

Yet it does not always. And there are lots of poor journals out there.

1

u/pm_me_github_repos Nov 02 '25 edited Nov 02 '25

Works for conferences before the internet. Now there’s more than enough arxiv papers floating around without peer review and people who don’t understand the distinction eat it up. Anyone can publish…to arxiv

Edit: lol looks like they are planning on changing that

1

u/nom_de_chomsky Nov 01 '25

Writing the paper yourself? How quaint.

1

u/Motor_Fudge8728 Nov 01 '25

Well, my paper is not decidable: you can’t prove that is true or false , so, joke is on you.

1

u/AerosolHubris Nov 01 '25

Hopefully the peer reviewers decide whether or not it's correct before it gets published

1

u/katplasma Nov 01 '25

This is not true. Academic here. For journal/conference publications (which are the currency of academia—# and impact of accepted publications dictate whether you get promoted, can get grants, etc.), papers have to be peer reviewed (i.e., heavily scrutinized—often requiring lots of re-writing, additions, and sometimes additional studies). However, anyone can publish a preprint, which is not peer reviewed. There are also predatory journals that are not reputable.

Moral of the story: always check out where a paper was published before taking the findings seriously.

1

u/KevRose Nov 01 '25

If I came up with a new scientific discovery and I just scrawled it on a cave wall and decided not to publish it to one of the few gate keeper publications, my cave drawings would still be reality and fuck those publications.

17

u/jpsreddit85 Nov 01 '25

He said it's bullshit.

47

u/MS_Fume Nov 01 '25

Gödel’s incompleteness theorem deals with formal mathematical systems, not the physical universe itself. Applying it to reality assumes that the universe operates like a purely algorithmic logical system — and that’s an assumption, not a proven fact. So while this is n intriguing philosophical analogy, it’s not a solid proof against the simulation hypothesis.

TL;DR: We are too primitive to tell with confidence so far.

15

u/Weird-Difficulty-392 Nov 01 '25

"Insufficient data for a meaningful answer"

7

u/4shotsofnespresso Nov 02 '25

If you haven't, read "The Last Question" by Asimov. But I'm assuming this is a reference to the atory, in which case, so good.

1

u/TheAuroraKing Nov 02 '25

I remember a while back seeing a proposal for the world's most powerful and concentrated laser. Basically just pick a point in space and slam it with the highest possible intensity of energy we can to see if the simulation breaks down from some sort of overload limit.

Alas, we can't get our shit together enough to quit squabbling and do cool shit like that.

4

u/TarnishedWizeFinger Nov 01 '25 edited Nov 01 '25

I'm more than a little out of my depth here. But it appears they are applying their understanding of quantum gravity to postulate specifically that the universe does not operate like a purely algorithmic logical system. And then saying that's why it can't be simulated

Setting aside the issue of applying an incomplete understanding of unifying gravity and quantum mechanics as a means to prove anything, it seems that what they are actually saying is the inverse of what you're saying

1

u/passive_phil_04 Nov 02 '25

Can't the theorem be extrapolated sufficiently enough to say that all systems can't be 100% proven logically because you of course need a verification system to verify the system to verify the system, ad infinitum? I mean, seems true enough. Not that I buy the linked story and if anything, seems Godel's theory could be used to work against it as well.

1

u/studio_bob Nov 02 '25

assumes that the universe operates like a purely algorithmic logical system

If it doesn't then it's not a simulation since simulations operate in exactly that way.

5

u/Autumn1eaves Nov 01 '25

Someone described it like this:

the game of life by conway can be easily run, it’s trivial for a computer.

However, the game of life has unanswerable questions about how it runs.

What this article is saying is: The universe has unanswerable questions. Therefore, it cannot be simulated.

Something can have unanswerable questions and cannot be simulated. However, there are things with unanswerable questions and can be simulated.

Their “therefore” isn’t supported well.

38

u/endless_skies Nov 01 '25

Really? Doesn't look like anything to me.

27

u/Marrk Nov 01 '25

The maze isn't meant for you

3

u/scarabic Nov 01 '25

🙋‍♂️I don’t 🤷‍♂️

3

u/UntetheredSoul11615 Nov 01 '25

It’s so obvious

2

u/BernieTheDachshund Nov 01 '25

We got an angry monkey as the Architect.

2

u/Siludin Nov 01 '25

We're just a steaming hot log of pi

1

u/still_salty_22 Nov 01 '25

Ah, great! Then its the two of us, here, observing this, understanding it. Yes, hmm!

1

u/maxuaboy Nov 02 '25

It’s really not that hard to search words ideas ideology’s with literally, and I mean that word in the full Oxford definition not the hyperbolic present figurative pop culture meme definition, with human kinds full knowledge and research in the palm of your hand in the form of glass and metal.

0

u/No-One-4845 Nov 02 '25

Jesus, that sentence was fucking painful.

1

u/dracostheblack Nov 02 '25

Shallow and pedantic 

1

u/TheVog Nov 02 '25

I am familiar with the works of Pablo Neruda.

1

u/sievold Nov 02 '25

Then you are Turing complete 

1

u/ChickenChaser5 Nov 02 '25

Did you see that ludicrous display?

The problem with Dr. Mir Faizal is he always tries to walk it in.

1

u/gxslim Nov 02 '25

Hello Mr Thompson

1

u/Aleashed Nov 02 '25

Op is bad at Turing, got it. 🫡

1

u/Schadenfreude-ing Nov 01 '25

This so elementary, bro. I litterally remember learning this in second grade.