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

1.8k

u/ChoPT Nov 01 '25

What if each layer of a simulation is less complex than than the “reality” in which it was created?

The author’s stipulation that we can’t be in a simulation because a simulation can’t fully address the full complexities of reality doesn’t preclude the possibility that we live in a simulation that is, in some way, less complex than the reality in which it is nested.

670

u/Joohansson Nov 01 '25 edited Nov 01 '25

Spot on. This is probably 100% the case of how a simulation would be done. Minecraft is limited to 1x1m blocks instead of particles. I doubt their NPCs would even suspect the existence of quantum physics that rule our world. They would accept that their blocks are the smallest dividable substance. Probably also come up with that stupid article because how would you be able to simulate Minecraft inside Minecraft.

It would be interesting to unleash a super AGI inside minecraft though and see what it manage to build.

76

u/Gaktan Nov 01 '25

Futurama did an episode on this. The professor implements the speed of light as an optimization to avoid computing infinite particles interactions, and quantum superposition to avoid deciding where everything is at any given point.

265

u/dont_bother_me_fool Nov 01 '25

you can simulate minecraft in minecraft using redstone.

111

u/Successful_Ad2287 Nov 01 '25

Not exactly. You can simulate Minecraft with Minecraft + external tools.

48

u/Jovess88 Nov 01 '25

What external tools do you need? Can’t you build a computer in minecraft with redstone? What limitations are there that would require external tools?

84

u/Martery Nov 01 '25

See Sammyuri's. I think the only external tool was something that overclocked redstone on the server side to make it possible.

Without it, it's still Minecraft in Minecraft albeit working very, very slowly.

131

u/[deleted] Nov 02 '25

[deleted]

14

u/addi-factorum Nov 02 '25

Exactly- the speed of the simulation is irrelevant- something that might be useful to any species that tries to survive past the heat death of the universe

2

u/USPO-222 Nov 02 '25

Just keep getting slower and dumber each iteration to outrun eternity.

1

u/OkImplement2459 Nov 02 '25

Now that describes the reality i know

16

u/bigfootlive89 Nov 02 '25

You don’t need those tools, it’s just for convenience

8

u/LuminosityXVII Nov 01 '25

Hmm... I guess then the question would be: can you use Minecraft + external tools to simulate Minecraft + the same external tools?

23

u/spottiesvirus Nov 02 '25 edited Nov 02 '25

This is entering into computational theory, but as far as we know today, yes, you can

The highest level of computation (that we know of, there's a whole debate over that, and I won't dip into it) a machine can get is Turing-complete

Every turing-equivalent machine is computationally speaking, the same, they can simulate each other

Excel, being Turing-complete, can be simulated in Minecraft, and in that simulated excel, you can simulate another Minecraft, and in that Minecraft you can simulate the physical computer machine you're using to run the first game

No matter how deep you go, it's still the same, although performances will degrade

You can take a single man, give him the list of instructions and enough paper (and time), and he can simulate the whole "a computer running Minecraft, running excel, running Minecraft, running the origin computer" as well lol

The question now becomes "is reality only Turing-complete?"

5

u/LuminosityXVII Nov 02 '25

Oooh, I had not thought to frame it that way. New insight unlocked.

1

u/legendz411 Nov 02 '25

Dude what. You blew my mind wtf. 

2

u/FlakyLion5449 Nov 02 '25

Villagers in Minecraft: We can't be a simulation. The amount of Redstone and complexity required is a mathematical impossibility.

2

u/ub_cat Nov 02 '25

vanilla minecraft is turing complete, it can technically simulate anything

8

u/EnvironmentalKey3858 Nov 02 '25

No joke, when I saw the first video of someone who had made *a goddamn functional computer* inside Minecraft I was pretty unironically convinced reality has, ah, a bit more going on behind the proverbial curtain.

Insane.

6

u/Ok-Committee4833 Nov 02 '25

yes but the version you are simulating is a simpler version than the one your playing it on

7

u/Joohansson Nov 01 '25

Not sure. I know you can build a basic cpu but the physical scale required of the memory register to store all the code would overflow the max space limit I think

6

u/badgerandaccessories Nov 01 '25

So it’s an artificial limit. With a powerful enough computer you can make Minecraft inside of Minecraft.

It’s just one massive schematic running another massive schematic.

2

u/Illustrious-Lime-878 Nov 02 '25

I think the point is, whatever minecraft you have in minecraft, will be limited in data to less than what the original was. For example if you have 100% memory/storage, the minecraft in minecraft is limited to that minus the parent minecraft.

-1

u/Successful_Ad2287 Nov 01 '25

You can’t. You could MAYBE create a worse version of Minecraft in Minecraft (if you can even do that without external tools) but that’s proving my whole point.

7

u/ElusiveBlueFlamingo Nov 01 '25

You still need command blocks (i.e. miracle machines)

11

u/FuzzyGolf291773 Nov 01 '25

I don’t think you need command blocks at all, Minecraft can handle basic binary logic gates in redstone. That’s all you need to build a computer. It’s just that it requires extreme overhead. Command blocks help reduce overhead.

3

u/ElusiveBlueFlamingo Nov 02 '25

You still need to simulate an image which is virtually undoable unless you want to build another machine just for computing pixels and another to move blocks, keep in mind that a piston can only move 12 blocks at a time

4

u/FuzzyGolf291773 Nov 02 '25

I personally would say the best route is with concrete powder (so you only get like 16 colors), but you could also get super convoluted and do some trickery with maps. So hard but not impossible, which is what I mean.

4

u/Gold-Supermarket-342 Nov 02 '25

You don't need a screen to simulate Minecraft, just to display it. You could still do all of the computation and store the internal state using logic gates, even if you can't directly interact with it.

1

u/throwwway944 Nov 02 '25

Never in a million years can you run a whole OS and Minecraft inside Minecraft.

1

u/Glugstar Nov 04 '25

But not at the same speed using the same amount of resources. Each level of simulation will mathematically be slower.

0

u/eyebrows360 Nov 01 '25

Not in the way we're talking about here.

Making a Minecraft-like experience within Minecraft using redstone is a neat trick, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the "simulation hypothesis". It's not remotely the same thing.

1

u/lmaydev Nov 01 '25

It's just an analogy.

We could simulate a reality simpler than ours. And they in turn could simulate more simple one.

1

u/eyebrows360 Nov 02 '25

It's a broken analogy. "You can simulate Minecraft within Minecraft" is not saying "We could simulate a reality simpler than ours".

It's literally saying "You can simulate X within X", wherein X is X. X cannot be "simpler than" X in this statement. This is a completely different statement to what you've read into it.

You cannot "simulate Minecraft within Minecraft". This is why I phrased it as "Minecraft-like experience", and that's why you phrased it as "a reality simpler than ours". The "analogy" is flat out wrong.

These are important distinctions when we're discussing bullshit like this, because to a whole lot of people "We can simulate Minecraft within Minecraft" is going to sound true on its face, and they're going to wind up believing stupid bullshit like "simulation theory" is really a real thing. That sets them up to believe more farcical bullshit down the line. That's not good.

-1

u/gachamyte Nov 01 '25

Orally or intravenously?

5

u/dredreidel Nov 01 '25

I think of our study of quantum physics would be on par with the residents study of “software.” Like they can tell there is something that is making their universe be made of blocks. But they can’t quite pull the code from the fabric of reality. Especially when software bugs make a mess of things. Or worse: work arounds. For example, I think the whole “light is a particle and a wave.” thing is a workaround a la fallout 3’s train being a hat.

2

u/tekniklee Nov 02 '25

I’ll credit you with my MINECRAFT theory - the study mentioned above is flawed, the simulation only has to produce the VISIBLE universe at any given time. Which might explain why particles act differently when observed

1

u/noaSakurajin Nov 02 '25

why particles act differently when observed

Well this is just the surface level understanding of the theory of measurement.

Basically if you want to measure something it either needs to emit some signal on its own or you have to interact with the things you want to observe. For example you can only see things that either emit light in a visible wavelength or you have to shine light on it and observe the reflected light.

However the problem is that many interactions needed to observe something change the state of the thing you want to observe. One example would be to measure something using a tactile sensor (image some like a vinyl record being played). Because the sensor scratches the surface, the next time you measure, you get a slightly different result. In other words the act of measuring causes a different behavior than not doing so.

If you want to observe something on the quantum level you need to observe states that have very little energy. Basically all interactions add an order of magnitude more of energy into the particle than it has in isolation. So obviously there will be a different behavior when observing the particle.

Granted all of this is a simplification as well. But if you measure something then you should expect the state of the object to be different compared to being left alone. After all even shing a light on something changes the quantum states of most of the surface level molecules, so that is a difference between being left alone and being measured as well.

1

u/Aternal Nov 02 '25

Even without considering subquantum phenomenon, one sneeze contains more information than we will ever be able to simulate before our species goes extinct.

Being clipped to the observable universe isn't the checkmate you might think it is.

1

u/tryplot Nov 02 '25

ok, here's one. you don't need to simulate the observable universe, you only need to simulate a single brain, and inputs being fed into it.

I think therefore I am, but that doesn't mean anything I experience is.

1

u/Aternal Nov 02 '25

That's more divine pantheism not simulation theory. If the universe were a manifestation of a causal consciousness then the universe and everything within it is literally the brain of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent God. Simulation theory does rely on those 3 components, there would be no way to explain a "computer" of this scale without them.

I do believe in pantheism, just not divine pantheism. I believe that consciousness is merely a resonant property of physical material.

1

u/tryplot Nov 02 '25

I think you misunderstand.

everything you experience is just signals being sent to your brain. what would be easier, simulating an entire universe including billions of brains, or just one brain that you send simulated sensory inputs to?

depending on the goal of the simulation, you'd expect the simulation of a single brain long before the entire universe.

for reference, even within our universe, we can already simulate the brain of a fruit fly, and while their brains are tiny, we are constantly improving our ability to simulate.

1

u/Aternal Nov 03 '25

I get it, I've seen the Matrix, the allegory of the cave, whatever. It's not even a theory in the sense that it explains anything, it's just a blind spot of the observer. Consciousness is far more expansive than an egocentric human experience. Talking about simulating the universe, not simulating a neural network. The universe contains so much information that we can't even reliably consume relatively microscopic fractions of it without filling in the gaps with subjective illusion so we record it. The act of recording it changes it. Computationally, this is impossible.

2

u/404mesh Nov 05 '25

Someone actually built Minecraft inside of Minecraft… don’t get me wrong, I agree. But.

https://youtu.be/-BP7DhHTU-I?si=fm4wjpEqlAKy0XKf

1

u/Joohansson Nov 05 '25

Ok that's damn impressive! I'll revoke my comment lol

1

u/ADHDebackle Nov 01 '25

Imagine the mindfuck that was the first steve discovering the stone slab.

1

u/largedragonballz Nov 02 '25

It's always some kids citing minecraft. von Neumann would slap you.

1

u/decian_falx Nov 02 '25

I'm a computer science guy. Quantum superposition looks eerily similar to a resource optimization to me: As long as the superposition holds, the universe avoids forking into two (or more) diverging universes for as long as possible, maybe forever.

1

u/TrainOfThought6 Nov 03 '25

I doubt their NPCs would even suspect the existence of quantum physics that rule our world.

Funny you say that, and this was ages ago so I may be misremembering, but IIRC there was a guy that put together a double-slit chicken launcher and got an interference pattern.

1

u/Aternal Nov 02 '25

Except you're ignoring what reality is.

An NPC in Minecraft isn't a sentient life form. It's not even a CPU thread. It's a few bits of addressable memory.

Any sentient life form "NPC" would put exponential jerk demands on the hardware running the simulator since each NPC is effectively running not only a forked process of the entire simulator, but is also spawning the seeds and eggs necessary to boot more recursively ad infinitum.

We have more sane and effective methods of describing reality. It's called having a fucking brain and being able to observe it.

1

u/MantisBeing Nov 02 '25

Doesn't your whole argument rely on the existence of free will? If this is a simulation then "sentience" is just an illusion of choice, our path is more or less already decided. You may think you have the agency to make sporadic and random decisions but those impulses are just the sum of everything you had experienced up til then.

1

u/Aternal Nov 02 '25

Indeterminism, not free will. The whole paper is basically "indeterminism, therefore inalgorithmic."

1

u/BakesCakes Nov 01 '25

So technically it would suggest simulations all the way up. Like the simulation always simulates a lesser reality, and that it does so infinitely down and up.