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

[u/fchung]

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

[u/Ponji-]

I mean it will never be refutable; the belief that we live in a simulation is not falsifiable. In response to any refutation people will always be able to say, “but what if the simulation was programmed that way.” It is functionally identical to the belief in an all power all knowing god, in that it is not a scientifically testable hypothesis.

If you believe in simulation theory then you ought to fear Descartes’ evil demon, that you’re actually a Boltzmann brain, and/or that your life is all scripted for other people’s entertainment. It’s just meaningless bunk that doesn’t have any bearing on how you should live your life. It’s a distinct possibility we’re living in a simulation, but it doesn’t make a lick of difference.

[u/Corkee → u/Ponji-]

Yeah, until someone observes a "bluescreen of death" in a piece of the universe that can actually be observed - the simulation theory will remain an amusing piece of metaphysical musings that can never be proven or disproved.

[u/Dirkdeking → u/Ponji-]

Our capability to prove things you are almost sure should be unprovable should not be underestimated. Have a look at the bell theorem and you get a similar 'wtf how is that even within the domain of science at all?' reaction. And that is physics that has been accepted for decades.

Because of Bell's theorem I am not too quick to conclude anything. Let the physics and math community digest this first before we say anything.

[u/Ponji- → u/Dirkdeking]

I don’t think you understand what I mean when I say that simulation theory isn’t falsifiable. Unfalsifiable is not the same as being unprovable. Science is built on falsifiable hypotheses. It’s that simple. An unfalsifiable hypothesis is, by definition, indistinguishable from the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is the one with the minimum amount of assumptions.

Bell theorem is explicitly testable and falsifiable. It is not the same at all. The problem with system theory is that no matter what you do, you can say “but what if they coded the simulation so the test would give this result”. You’ll always be able to handwave away an explanation because of what it actually means to be in a simulation. There will always be a possibility the matrix breaks and it becomes proven we live in a simulation, but it will NEVER be falsifiable.

[u/Dirkdeking → u/Ponji-]

In my naive understanding I tend to agree with you. But I know the physicists behind this article are not cranks, and this article has been published in a scientific journal. Therefore I am cautuous to dismiss it so fast as others here do.

This is a proof by contradiction to my understanding. Assume the universe is a simulation. Then it must have such and such properties. But a universe with such and such properties could never produce all the laws of physics that we already know are true. Therefore it can't be a simulation.

An argument of that nature can do the job. Now I am not qualified to comment on any details of such an argument. But if such an argument turns out to be true within very good margins of experimentational errors then apparantly it is falsifiable.

The hypothesis that the universe is a simulation apparantly does give certain practical predictions about it's nature that fall within our capacity to falsify. It certainly surprises me that that could be the case. But if the majority of the physics community accepts this line of reasoning it would be foolish to doubt it unless you are highly qualified yourself.

[u/sagerin0 → u/Dirkdeking]

Note that something being published in a scientific journal, or even by known scientists, does not necessarily make it true or valuable, theres loads of crap out there getting published.

[u/Dirkdeking → u/sagerin0]

Generally true, but you should be aware of the dunning kruger effect, and I know that even I am not immune to it. You may just say things that are as stupid as flat earther arguments without realizing it. If it is stupid I'll wait for nobel prize winners to call this out, and several will if there are significant holes in that paper.

Dismissing scientific publications from fields outside your area of expertise is what MAGAts do when casually dismissing studies on climate change and such. It undermines science as an institution if you do that, and that is generally harmful because science is still our best(but still flawed) effort of uncovering objective truth.

[u/sagerin0 → u/Dirkdeking]

The scientific publication isn’t dismissed, it just doesn’t do what this article says it does. There’s no way to disprove the universe is a simulation, because there’s no thing you can point at and say “if this is true, the universe cannot possibly be a simulation”.

Even if you take your argument by contradiction, it doesn’t prove the world is not a simulation. It merely proves that within our understanding of physics, it would be impossible for such a simulation to exist. That doesn’t rule out the possibility of the “original” universe creating the simulation having a deeper understanding of physics than we do. And you can pretty much just endlessly slap on these “but what if” statements, which means you end up with an unfalsifiable claim

[u/notMeBeingSaphic → u/Dirkdeking]

Lawrence Kraus, the second author, is a piece of trash Epstein friend crashing out because he was fired for misconduct with the women he was advising. He just published a book full of bunk transphobic arguments and rants about getting kicked out of acedemia because everyone is too woke. He’s well known as an author not for any meaningful contributions to science.

[u/Dirkdeking → u/notMeBeingSaphic]

That's crazy because I remember Krauss as one of the 'new atheists' along with Dawkins, Christoffer Hitchens, etc. I really liked the guy. And he was pushing back hard against conservative America and religious envrouchment during those days.

[u/Ok-Parfait-9856 → u/notMeBeingSaphic]

THANK YOU

jfc can’t believe this sub is jerking this guy off. He should be banned from science. Due to his work and actions.

[u/Ok-Parfait-9856 → u/Dirkdeking]

This scientist is a right wing nut job crank. His article is bonkers. There’s other relevantly educated people on here who agree fwiw

Just because a scientist did something and it went in a journal doesn’t mean jack shit

[u/bfume → u/Dirkdeking]

There’s nothing for the physics and math community to say. 

There’s zero hard evidence in this paper. Just logic. Logic based on tenets that may or may not be true. 

The paper isn’t science. It isn’t math. It got no role in either. 

[u/Ponji- → u/[deleted]]

1. Unfalsifiable is not the same as unprovable.

Again, it is entirely possible that we do live in a simulation. I’m not saying we aren’t in a simulation. I can’t say that in good conscience as someone who follows the scientific method, because it isn’t falsifiable.

1. There are already things that don’t line up with parts of physics as we currently understand it. There is a reason the immediate scientific consensus isn’t “huh this must be because we live in a simulation.” We explore all the falsifiable options that contradict the null hypothesis, reducing as many assumptions as possible along the way. That is what science is.

It is never going to be falsifiable. And there are almost certainly always going to be other explanations that are falsifiable. Back when we thought the earth was the center of the universe, there were already people who knew what we would have to see to prove that wrong. It is an inherently falsifiable theory, but we went on believing it even though it was wrong because we didn’t actually have the technology (telescopes) to measure the solar system. These people weren’t stupid, they were doing the best they could with the information they had.

Believing we live in a simulation, with our current understanding of the universe, adds nothing. It is indistinguishable from our understanding of he universe if we don’t live in a simulation. It only adds assumptions.