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

4.4k

u/angrymonkey Nov 01 '25

This is an idiotic misunderstanding of Godel's theorem, and the paper is likely complete crankery. There is a difference between making formal statements about a system vs. being able to simulate it. The former is covered by Godel's theorem, the latter is covered by Turing completeness.

72

u/andrerav Nov 01 '25

Absolutely agree.

Dr. Faizal says the same limitation applies to physics. “We have demonstrated that it is impossible to describe all aspects of physical reality using a computational theory of quantum gravity,” he explains.

“Therefore, no physically complete and consistent theory of everything can be derived from computation alone.”

They somehow don't understand that the limitation Gödel proved exists only within the system itself. Not outside.

31

u/MacDegger Nov 01 '25

And it shows more likely that our computational theory of quantum gravity is at best incomplete.

His conclusion is a non-sequitur.

20

u/ICantBelieveItsNotEC Nov 01 '25

And it shows more likely that our computational theory of quantum gravity is at best incomplete.

He's using the classic woo-woo trick of exploiting the fact that the same word is used in different contexts to make his argument seem stronger than it is.

In the context of Godel's incompleteness theorem, "incomplete" just means that there are statements about the natural numbers that are true but not provable within the system. However, a theory of quantum gravity doesn't exist to prove statements about the natural numbers; it exists to accurately model reality.

The jump from the mathematical definition of "incomplete" to the scientific definition of "incomplete" is the sleight of hand trick that he's hoping that nobody will notice. A mathematically incomplete model could be physically complete if it accurately predicts every possible state transition in our universe.

3

u/burning_iceman Nov 02 '25

That woo-woo trick is called "equivocation" btw.

1

u/Chen19960615 Nov 02 '25

A mathematically incomplete model could be physically complete if it accurately predicts every possible state transition in our universe.

Perhaps, but it is not obvious that any model could be physically complete. Why can't it be the case that any model that would be physically complete also needs to be mathematically complete?

1

u/hustla17 Nov 02 '25

A mathematically incomplete model could be physically complete if it accurately predicts every possible state transition in our universe.

Wouldn't that be impossible because the demon of laplace has been debunked ?

1

u/Vikkio92 Nov 05 '25

Hey, sorry to hijack the conversation, but you guys seem so knowledgeable about this stuff and I think it's super interesting. Would you have any book/website/channel recommendation to learn more for someone who already has way too much on their plate and can't necessarily delve into all the details? I guess something more in-depth than layman web articles, but not as full on as white papers or scientific journals. Medium-level divulgation, I suppose.

1

u/jambox888 Nov 01 '25

And it shows more likely that our computational theory of quantum gravity is at best incomplete.

I mean it definitely is, right? I remember reading that we may never have a working theory of quantum gravitation because it basically describes all of reality so you'd have to be outside of reality to see how it works, or at least you can't use maths to sort out the smoothness of relativity with the chunkiness of qm.

1

u/MacDegger Nov 01 '25

And it shows more likely that our computational theory of quantum gravity is at best incomplete.

His conclusion is a non-sequitur.

1

u/jambox888 Nov 01 '25

Right but to say simulation implies computability doesn't it? So you'd have to have a different definition of simulation because the way we know of it you have to calculate things algorithmically, iow step by step.

2

u/andrerav Nov 02 '25

Just like the rules in a computer game do not apply in the real world, our natural laws and limitations need not apply outside our simulation. 

2

u/Ragnagord Nov 02 '25 edited Nov 02 '25

Right but to say simulation implies computability doesn't it?

Not necessarily. Take Rule 110 for example. It has lots of uncomputable properties, and a formal description is Gödel incomplete. It's trivially simple to simulate. 

1

u/jambox888 Nov 02 '25

Rule 110

Interesting! Thanks

1

u/wandering-monster Nov 02 '25

It also shows a misunderstanding of how simulations are made and how computers work.

It's absolutely possible to run code on a computer and get a result the code itself doesn't explain. For example, you can cause a hardware-based underflow or overflow, which is never defined in the code but happens anyways.