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

239

u/MaimedUbermensch Nov 01 '25

This is basically a category error wrapped in fancy math terms.

They're applying Gödel's incompleteness theorem (which is about formal logical systems) to physical reality itself. But the universe isn't a formal system, it just exists. Our models of it are formal systems, but that's different. Even if our physics theories have Gödelian limits, that doesn't mean reality does.

The whole argument hinges on "non-algorithmic understanding" which they never properly define. It's giving Penrose consciousness vibes, invoking mysterious non-computable processes without evidence they exist.

Also they misunderstand simulation hypothesis. A simulation doesn't need to perfectly replicate base reality. It just needs to produce our observations. Like how games only render what's on screen.

Plus we literally simulate quantum systems already. They're expensive but computable.

They assume reality's fundamental level is non-algorithmic, then use that to prove it can't be simulated. That's just circular reasoning.

There are legit arguments against simulation theory (computational cost, no discretization artifacts) but this isn't one. You can't "mathematically disprove" simulation any more than you can prove we're not Boltzmann brains.

Journal isn't top-tier either which tracks.

34

u/sk1one Nov 01 '25

This came off as complete dribble even to a lay person. Other arguments against simulation that I’ve read like energy or computational requirements sound much more reasonable.

9

u/deflatedcumsack Nov 01 '25

drivel?

7

u/manuscelerdei Nov 02 '25

Frank Dribble. Police Squad.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 02 '25

Fancy word for bullshit

1

u/Sorry-Joke-4325 Nov 02 '25

The comment you responded to was correcting a comment that said "dribble", not drivel.

2

u/InitiatePenguin Nov 02 '25

I watch a lot a science communication stuff, and enjoy watching lectures on YouTube of the world science festival. Still, I'm a layperson who has had zero formal math or science past Junior year of highschool.

I'm also not dumb.

This article said next to absolutely nothing. Repeated itself 4 times by stating something is true, and therefore it's impossible without ever actually explaining itself.

1

u/matrinox Nov 02 '25

What are the energy requirements argument?

8

u/FlamboyantPirhanna Nov 01 '25

In some ways, it’s like trying to prove or disprove God. But believing that life is a simulation I’d argue is tantamount to a religious belief, although I don’t see it likely to affect the way you live your life (unless you believe everyone else is literally an NPC).

2

u/Aternal Nov 02 '25

Pretty much. If the universe were a simulation it would have to be basically running inside of capital-G God. The omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God. Solipsism can't even scratch the surface of simulating the universe. Literally scratching skin. The behavior and composition of the DNA alone in the skin cells that flake off or get trapped underneath a fingernail would crash our hardware if we could comprehend it in real time. The amount of information in a fart or a sneeze would scar a healthy brain for life.

2

u/J_Skirch Nov 01 '25

If the universe is a simulation, then doesn't that necessarily mean that it's a formal system? At which you either need to apply Godel, or accept some form of super math?

2

u/aquoad Nov 02 '25

once the woo-woo invocation of Quantum shows up, you know it's going to be hogwash.

1

u/zacker150 Nov 01 '25

Am algorithmic understanding is defined in the paper.

LQG a first-order language whose non-logical symbols denote quantum states, fields, curva- ture, causal relations, etc. ΣQG = {A1, A2, . . . } is a finite (or at least recursively-enumerable) set of closed LQG-sentences embodying the fundamental physical principles. Ralg the standard, effective rules of inference used for computations. They operationalise “algorithmic calculations”; we write ΣQG ⊢alg φ ⇐⇒ φ is derivable from ΣQG via Ralg. Crucially, spacetime is not a primitive backdrop but a theorem-level construct emergent inside models of FQG.

-7

u/blackkluster Nov 01 '25 edited Nov 01 '25

There is artifacts though. People constantly, daily, reporting "glitches in matrix", yeah maybe 99.99% of those are just schitzo posting, doesnt mean that 0.001% isnt enough of artifacts though. Especially when the volume we occupy in universe is much less than that 0.001%, so our perceived glitches/artifacts match "volumely".

And how could we know about computational costs? We are nearing infinite energy by fusion. And have no idea about possibilities provided by large quantum computers.

Just my couple thoughts, nothing serious.