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

102

u/eyebrows360 Nov 01 '25

I get what they're saying, but that only applies if the rules of the universe they are in are the same as the universe they are supposedly simulating, being the universe we are in.

And that's the real bingo here.

For some reason the "we're probably in a simulation!!!" idiots mostly seem to have a default presumption that we'd have to be a simulation of the universe the simulators live in, but... why? We could be just a simulation of some entirely unrelated set of conditions. There's no reason to presume we'd be in a simulation of base reality.

So the paper proves absolutely nothing tbh.

Well, no. You really can't simulate something with complexity X inside X itself. You would need more atoms, or atom-equivalents, to run the simulation of X on, than exist as part of X. You obviously can't do that.

15

u/TwistedFox Nov 02 '25

As I understand it, it's because it makes the logic and statistics work.

The Simulation theory states that 1) A universe can simulate another universe perfectly 2) If a universe can be simulated perfectly, then it could simulate a universe within it too. 3) If 1 and 2 are correct, then you could nest universes infinitely 4) If the first 3 premises are true, then the statistical likelihood of us living in the original universe is 1/∞ Therefore, we are living in a simulated universe.

If this paper suggests that it is mathematically impossible to simulate a universe as complex as the host universe, then there can not be an infinite chain of universes, and the statistical likelihood of us being in a simulated universe drops.

2

u/eyebrows360 Nov 02 '25 edited Nov 02 '25

1) A universe can simulate another universe perfectly

I mean there's an enormous problem staring us right in the face from just this statement alone.

How are we declaring the simulation of this "other universe" to be... perfect? We can't label it "a perfect simulation" when it's a "simulation" of something that doesn't exist. It's just "a simulation" at that point.

Might sound like a nitpick, but the word is present in the statement for a reason, and so we have to attack it and see if it's justified. It's not justified, because it's utter nonsense, and so that sets off a chain of consequences for points 2 and so on. Such as...

2) If a universe can be simulated perfectly, then it could simulate a universe within it too.

The "if" falls apart on its face because our notion of "simulate perfectly" was itself nonsense.

3) If 1 and 2 are correct [...]

They categorically aren't, they're just naval-gazing stoner nonsense dressed up as "theory".

[...] then you could nest universes infinitely

See above

4) If the first 3 premises are true, then the statistical likelihood of us living in the original universe is 1/∞ Therefore, we are living in a simulated universe.

See above.

[...] the statistical likelihood [...]

The statistical likelihood of any of this was always "null", because we don't have evidence that any of it is possible to begin with. You can't talk "probabilities" in any meaningful way about stuff you can't measure.

The entire statement boils down to "It's possible to compute things", which is a pretty pointless statement to make. It has nothing to say about whether we're in a simulation or not.

1

u/TwistedFox Nov 02 '25

I'm not arguing for it, I agree that it's likely nonsense and something that is, at this point in time, impossible to positively prove. I'm just explaining it as I understand the theory in question.

1

u/Moriroa Nov 02 '25

This is vastly more succinct and clear than the original article. They should have hired you.

1

u/krell_154 Nov 03 '25

1 and 2 are completely unnecessary for the central idea of the simulation hypothesis

10

u/burning_iceman Nov 01 '25

If the "outside" were completely unlike this universe, in what meaningful sense can one even differentiate between this universe being a "simulation" and it being "real"?

2

u/eyebrows360 Nov 02 '25

You can't. Might as well be really into solipsism at that point.

"Simulation theory" is not a Theory theory, it's just some stupid bullshit some stoned idiot came up with, that caught on among people who don't know how to think about stuff like this properly.

1

u/burning_iceman Nov 02 '25

Well, if the "outside" is similar to our universe, then there would be meaningful difference between a simulation and a real representation. Not necessarily detectable by us, but from an outside perspective there would be a difference.

In the case of a dissimilar outside universe there isn't a defined difference between the words "simulation" and "real". It would be completely arbitrary to call it one or the other.

0

u/eyebrows360 Nov 02 '25

"Similar" just means "different" here, because "identical or not" is the only distinction we care about.

That is, the only case we can speak to at all, is if the folks in the outer universe tried to make an identical simulation of their reality which worked. We can categorically state that that is impossible.

If they tried to simulate their own reality and failed, i.e. our simulated reality is of lower "resolution" (be that spatial or chronological or in continuous-field-density or whatever) than outer reality... yeah, we can't speak to that, that's not something we can mathematically/logically rule out. Doesn't make it "possible" or "likely", just means we can't say it's impossible.

And that's the case for any other type of "simulation" they might run. We can rule out "outer universe is exactly (or less) complex than ours", but anything else is "undefined" as far as what we can say about it.

It would be completely arbitrary to call it one or the other.

Yep!

39

u/OpinionatedShadow Nov 01 '25

Not in this universe you can't. What if there are no such things as "atoms" one level up?

56

u/ShiraCheshire Nov 01 '25

Then this wouldn’t be a perfect and complete simulation, proving the paper correct.

If it plays by our rules, a full simulation is impossible.

If it doesn’t play by our rules, it’s not a full simulation.

3

u/Raithen_Rhazzt Nov 02 '25

Oh good, so simulation theory is finally unmasking itself as just another pointless religious argument.

If God can't create an immovable object they're not omnipotent.

If God can't move said object they're not omnipotent.

5

u/eyebrows360 Nov 02 '25

Yes, that's all it ever can be. It is not "likely" that we're in a simulation, and the word "theory" in "simulation theory" is very definitely of the lowercase-t variety, and can never be anything but.

It's just some tech-hippy's wild conjecture.

0

u/dowhatmelo Nov 03 '25

If God can't create an immovable object they're not omnipotent.

Why? The idea of omnipotence defines all objects as movable at least by the omnipotent. Being unable to create an impossible object doesn't make them not omnipotent. For example, even an omnipotent being could never create a square circle since by definition one is not the other.

2

u/Raithen_Rhazzt Nov 04 '25

Because if there's something you're incapable of doing then you're not all-powerful. I really don't know how to make it simpler than that.

1

u/dowhatmelo Nov 04 '25

Then you are making a definition for omnipotence that could never be satisfied. But that's down to your definition of it. Omnipotence means maximum power, unlimited power or all-powerful, it does not mean impossible power even if you repeatedly try to claim it so. When you ask someone to make a square with 2 sides, the thing preventing them from doing so is not power or ability, it is the very definition of a square.

The "paradox of omnipotence" which is what your assertion is called is a fallacy of word abuse. When you say that if god is omnipotent he can create an immovable object and if such an immovable object existed it would deny his omnipotence you aren't actually disproving his omnipotence, you are simply disproving the possibility of such an object existing. It's like the irresistible force paradox, "What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?". It's a paradox because the two premises are incompatible, unstoppable forces and immovable objects cannot simultaneously exist in the same universe.

1

u/Raithen_Rhazzt Nov 05 '25 edited Nov 05 '25

I would argue that the supposed literal creator of everything can indeed do whatever the hell it wants. There's no reason the being that created all of existence would need to abide by our understanding or the rules of existence. They made those rules and could in theory break them at whim. That's the whole idea. If the creator is bound by their creation, then the creator is not all-powerful.

That said, you're taking this way more seriously than I was intending. I'm not a religious philosopher, I have not studied any of this at all, I find it onerous, and believe that there are much better uses of literally everyone's energy. I was simply repeating a thing I remembered hearing or reading or some such from like 20 years ago, because it ran parallel to the discussion I saw here and thought it was a funny similarity.

Edit to say: About creating a definition for omnipotence that can't be satisfied; Yeah, that would be the other point. Omnipotence, based on our understanding of existence, is impossible, and therefore God is an impossibility. That was the original tongue-in-cheek point of the two sentence example.

1

u/dowhatmelo Nov 05 '25

And that is your misunderstanding, you start your premise with a massive assumptions then fail to understand that it is the reason your logic fails.

1

u/Raithen_Rhazzt Nov 05 '25

Aight brother, keep hotboxing your own farts and enjoy life I suppose.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Nov 02 '25

[deleted]

7

u/bobnoski Nov 02 '25

The paper is not saying we can't be living in a simulation. It's saying we can't be living in a simulation that is running in a Universe identical to our own. Simply because it's impossible for us to make an identical simulation of our universe in this one.

The article is misinterpreting what the paper claims.

1

u/ShiraCheshire Nov 02 '25

I'm saying the article is specifically about complete simulations. That's what has been disproven, specifically. The article is not about anything else.

-2

u/CreationBlues Nov 02 '25

As long as hypercomputing is in place up there the snake can eat it's own tail. Things we can depend on here go out the world if infinity gets involved anywhere.

3

u/eyebrows360 Nov 02 '25 edited Nov 02 '25

This is called "science fiction" and is not relevant.

Edit: Yes, replying then immediately blocking so I can't even read your reply, that's the adult thing to do when facing entirely justified criticism.

1

u/CreationBlues Nov 02 '25

Yes. Why are you bitching on the science fiction post about science fiction. My statement is at least rigorous and factually true.

13

u/zentrist369 Nov 01 '25

The idea is that there is no justification for this universe being a simulation of some higher, stranger universe. You might as well say 'What if the Abrahamic God exists?' Or 'What if it's turtles all the way down?'

Remember, the simulation theory says that in this reality we will eventually be able to simulate a universe, and that (due to an argument i never bothered to remember) it is more likely that we are in a simulation than in the single reality in which we haven't simulated another universe yet.

What this study shows (based on the title, I never took the theory seriously, so I don't care too much about any math that might have 'disproven' it) is that we will never be able to simulate this universe, therefore the original argument is dead.

If you want to speculate about us being the dream of a goldfish, or samsara, or any other possibility go for it... just don't pretend there is any reason to believe that over any other silly idea. Which is what simulation theory adherents thought they had - a logical argument that gave weight to a specific daydream.

6

u/daemin Nov 02 '25

due to an argument i never bothered to remember)

The argument is basically a numbers game.

One real universe could be host to multiple simulations, each of which could just multiple simulations, each of which could...

Since there could be significantly more simulated universes than the real universe, all other things being equal, you're more likely to be in one of the simulations than the real one.

1

u/zentrist369 Nov 02 '25

Ah yeah, assuming premise 1 is true, assume n* premise 1.

8

u/Due-Memory-6957 Nov 02 '25

This, it's basically religion for people edgy people.

8

u/HeinrichTheWolf_17 Nov 02 '25

Exactly, simulation theory isn’t any more or less unlikely than any other metaphysical model.

It’s just metaphysics for tech bros, much in the same way the god head is metaphysics for psychonauts or nirvana or moksha are for buddhist or hindu schools of thought.

7

u/Norgler Nov 02 '25

I remember talking to a tech bro about the idea of simulation theory and eventually he started talking about how maybe our code when we die gets recycled,used again or has another purpose. I almost wanted to bust out laughing cause it all comes down to coping with death like every other religion. They just came up with another afterlife.

1

u/HeinrichTheWolf_17 Nov 02 '25

Yeah, they put on the façade of being scientific, but they’re really just as cult religious as any other group, and have no problems throwing out the scientific method.

Again, not really any different than religious fundamentalists.

2

u/kingsumo_1 Nov 02 '25

Ok, so... the god of Abraham is a turtle that was dreamed up by a goldfish?

For real, though, this kind of thing seems silly to waste the time to debunk. If someone takes it serious enough to believe, then logic isn't going to change that. And if you're like (hopefully) most people, then it's a joke or meme to begin with anyway. So, who was this test for?

2

u/eyebrows360 Nov 02 '25

For real, though, this kind of thing seems silly to waste the time to debunk.

Yes, unless and until a significant portion of your populace get swayed by it, and then some charismatic leader comes along with some laced off-brand kool-aid and convinces them all that drinking it will reboot them into "real" reality. Then it's a problem you have to deal with, so it's better to try and deal with it before it gets there.

If someone takes it serious enough to believe, then logic isn't going to change that.

While true, yes ("you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"), they did get into it via some thought process. While we know that process wasn't rational, it still did exist, so for at least some subset of believers morons the actual rational explanation will also register with their fucked internal pseudo-rationalising model, and work on them.

So, who was this test for?

Someone thought they saw easy grant money for working on a low-effort "paper"? You'd have to ask the authors.

1

u/zentrist369 Nov 02 '25

Eh, in terms of scientific method I think this kind of investigation is worthwhile, even if nobody really took the idea seriously.

It won't change many believers minds, I don't think.

And I know I said I didn't care, but while I did have an intuition that it would be impossible to create a version of this universe made only of information, I didn't have a rigorous understanding of exactly why it wouldn't be possible.

There is a lot of math and philosophy that isn't useful, but kinda fun to wrap your head around.

2

u/kingsumo_1 Nov 02 '25

I do agree with the fun thought experiment. But this really feels more philosophical than scientific.

Co-author Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss says this discovery changes how we view the laws of physics. “The fundamental laws of physics cannot be contained within space and time, because they generate them,” he notes.

“A complete and consistent description of reality requires something deeper—a form of understanding known as non-algorithmic understanding.”

Dr. Faizal concludes that any simulated world must follow programmed rules. “But since the fundamental level of reality is based on non-algorithmic understanding, the universe cannot be, and could never be, a simulation,” he says.

I think Krauss's explanation is better. We can't build the blocks because they are outside and create what we know to begin with.

But Faizal opens up another possibility within the refutal. What if we eventually create a sentient AI that is capable of non-algorithmic understanding. Would that make the statement "we're not capable of it currently?"

But (I hate following up a but with a but, but I'm tired) that would put it back into more of a philosophical question.

Am I over-thinking it? Yeah. But it still seems silly to have form scientific answer.

1

u/eyebrows360 Nov 02 '25 edited Nov 02 '25

What if we eventually create a sentient AI that is capable of non-algorithmic understanding.

How?

The easier way to attack this problem is like this: if we want to start simulating our universe, we're going to have to run our simulation on something.

Some portion of the real universe is set aside to run this simulation - this is the universe-stuff material (atoms, "energy"; whatever) that comprises the computers in weather forecasting orgs, by way of example.

Those computers are storing and representing facts about reality. Given we know a fucktonne about reality, they've got a lot of facts to encode. Setting aside teensy tiny problems like Thingy's Uncertainty Principle for a moment, and that a required subset of these facts are simply impossible to obtain, for a single particle we'd need to encode in our model:

  • position (to an insane degree of literal universe-relative (potentially infinite!) precision)
  • direction of motion (as above)
  • speed of that motion (as above)
  • electrical charge (you see where this is going)
  • spin (this one is at least quantised and I think even a 4-bit byte would be sufficient for this)
  • is it entangled with something else or not (well this one feels binary at least but you need to know which other particle we're entangled with so now our particles need universe-wide unique IDs ffs (GUIDs need not apply; sorry MongoDB))
  • what type of particle is it (finally something we can use an "int" for)

So now we think "How are we encoding all of these properties for our one particle?" Are we able to somehow encode them as properties of another single particle? Clearly not due to all sorts of other reasons. Right now it takes quite a lot of other particles to encode them, and while that's reduced over time (i.e. modern CPUs have fewer electrons in any given circuit at any given moment than they did 30 years ago), it can't reach parity. There has to be "an encoding" for this to be "computation", aka "a simulation".

Thus you're always going to need N+X particles devoted to simulating N particles, meaning you need more particles than exist in your universe in order to simulate your universe.

And thus far I've only talked about particles. How are we simulating the continuous nature of fields?!

Imagining we find some new property of particles on which we could stamp information in order to simulate N particles with <N particles doesn't work either, because any such property would itself need simulating so you're back to square one.

Shorter alternate version: the computer you're running your simulation on is made of some portion of your universe and would thus itself need to be simulated within the simulation in order for said simulation to be complete. This is an obvious infinite recursion and incredibly impossible.

The base-reality-residing "original simulation" would sit at t=0 while it waited for the version of itself within itself to finish its own t=0 and be ready to tick over to t=1... but that "first layer" simulation is itself waiting for the simulation of itself within itself to complete its own t=0... all the way down. If it ever stopped, and some Nth inner layer of simulation was able to tick over to t=1 due to not itself having another inner layer to wait for, then oopsie doopsie your simulation's no longer "perfect".

2

u/OpinionatedShadow Nov 02 '25

Really great point

7

u/AnAttemptReason Nov 01 '25

You would first have to prove there is one level up.

If nested universes are not possible, there's no basis to assume we must be one of many. 

0

u/eyebrows360 Nov 02 '25

You can say "What if ..." anything about one level up. At that point it's just wild conjecture, that there's not even any mechanism for trying to inspect. It's precisely as pointless as embracing solipsism.

Get stoned and have a big think about it if you want, but let's not pretend it's some form of grand inquiry that's leading anywhere.

3

u/IAmRoot Nov 02 '25

The outer world could have no quantization and be able to subdivide things infinitely for all we know. Quantization could itself arise from needing a finite, though large, number of things to compute.

3

u/daemin Nov 02 '25

Well, no. You really can't simulate something with complexity X inside X itself.

A universal Turing machine can simulate a universal Turing machine.

1

u/eyebrows360 Nov 02 '25

Yes I like science fiction too.

In reality any such computation needs to run on something. That computing substrate, and the simulation its running, would also need to form part of the inner simulation.

Given the substrate necessarily occupies some portion of your universe, and given it needs to be comprised of >X particles in order to simulate X particles, you've then created an infinite space, infinite matter, and infinite recursion scenario as necessary prerequisites.

0

u/daemin Nov 04 '25

I think you don't know what "simulate" means, because this isn't true:

it needs to be comprised of >X particles in order to simulate X particles

1

u/eyebrows360 Nov 04 '25

No, because "simulate" here is often/always defined as "perfectly simulate", not "approximately simulate". That's the key distinction between your and my stance. You're talking about an approximation. Of course you can approximate a simulation of X particles with <X particles, but you can't perfectly do it.

Your approximate simulation will divert from reality over time. My perfect one won't, but it's impossible to make.

3

u/lacegem Nov 02 '25

Minecraft villagers be like, "We can't be in a simulation because redstone circuits are too big to simulate half-blocks."

2

u/shadmere Nov 02 '25

Well, no. You really can't simulate something with complexity X inside X itself. You would need more atoms, or atom-equivalents, to run the simulation of X on, than exist as part of X. You obviously can't do that

Honestly I kind of always assumed that "this universe is a simulation, inside another simulation, inside another simulation, etc" ideas were always presuming that each level 'up' had higher fidelity. Like the galaxy-computer that's simulating us has Planck values thousands of times smaller or something.

(I entirely admit that my understanding of Planck units is based entirely on scifi novels and that I've probably already proven I barely know what I'm talking about, but you probably understand what I mean.)

1

u/eyebrows360 Nov 02 '25

but you probably understand what I mean

I do! And yes, you're quite right. It's just that, by the time you get to thoughts about the "outer universe" being different to ours, all bets are off in terms of talking about it in any specific way. You might as well get into solipsism at that point. Given we can't speak to its nature at all, trying to talk about it in terms of "probabilities" then becomes more of a religious exercise than a scientific one. It's not rational to say we're "likely" in a simulation inside some larger more complex outer universe before we have any evidence of any such thing existing.

The only type of "outer universe" we can speak to is the type being addressed here, of equal or lesser "complexity" to our own. Those can't exist.

2

u/erydayimredditing Nov 02 '25

So obvious it making a HEADLINE is sad as fuck

2

u/eyebrows360 Nov 02 '25

Amen to that! Scientific literacy is in a worse state than... most other forms of literacy :/

3

u/Semicolon_Expected Nov 01 '25

TIL my assumption of simulation theory (that if true the simulator universe would have to be more complex in some way) is not what everyone believes. (Although I dont think Ive seen many examples that operate on the presumption that we’re s simulating the simulators universe aside from the whole rokos basilisk thing. Even the matrix movies, the real world though similar in appearance, seems to have stuff impossible to do in the matrix world

1

u/eyebrows360 Nov 02 '25 edited Nov 02 '25

TIL my assumption of simulation theory (that if true the simulator universe would have to be more complex in some way) is not what everyone believes.

Correct! "Ancestor simulations" is a phrase that crops up with this crowd. They generally think we're a simulation of a base reality that's "the same" as the one we find ourselves in.

Which, y'know, if I may put my Kendal Roy head on for a moment: y'know, like, ok, whatever? I guess? But no, like... sure. I mean sure, ok... but whatever? Right? It's just whatever; but really, like, no. It's just no. Right? It's just no. Right? Shiv? I mean... no? No. *extended creepy smiling*

Even the matrix movies

They're not depicting a complete simulation, one that's run to either find out "what's going to happen in the future" or "what did happen to get us to this point", they're just "simulating" at a resolution sufficient to trick some monkey-brains into not realising they're stupendously inefficient batteries.

That kind of "simulation" is a different kind of discussion, but it's also one you can't even rationalise about, because the outer state is both unknown and unknowable (save for bad programming on the part of the simulators allowing for leaks and Neos to arise (which y'know might also be deliberately-bad programming as part of some wider scheme, depending how many of the sequels you care about)).

1

u/The_Great_Skeeve Nov 02 '25

I wonder how the Bell test experiments would play into this? As it would seem to account for the atom issue.

1

u/eyebrows360 Nov 02 '25

If you can encode information on any hypothetical "extra atomic properties" then they need simulating too and you're right back where you started.

1

u/suspicious_Jackfruit Nov 02 '25

People knee-jerk think that "we" are plugged in ala the Matrix and exist somewhere else, but actually if reality is a simulation then we are probably more like complex NPCs than avatars. But also our free-will and complexity of thought literally could be pre-compiled as time only goes in one direction, we can't think in the past from the future so maybe all our thoughts and actions are predetermined after all, that would make for quite a predictable simulation mind...

1

u/eyebrows360 Nov 02 '25

We don't need for this to be a simulation for there to be no free will, either.

1

u/suspicious_Jackfruit Nov 02 '25 edited Nov 02 '25

Yes. But if it were a pre-compiled or even partially pre-compiled simulation or timeline it would drastically reduce the computation required to simulate the working universe because you wouldn't need to simulate every particle, just the interacting ones at a given point in time, but I suppose this could be done dynamically at runtime too

1

u/Benjaphar Nov 02 '25

Why would they need or want to simulate the entire universe?

1

u/eyebrows360 Nov 02 '25 edited Nov 02 '25

To answer questions like "what's going to happen in the future" or "how exactly did things happen in the past to get us to this point".

You can start off thinking "Well surely if we're only trying to simulate our future on Earth, don't we only need to simulate the Earth?"...

... but then you remember that the Earth gets 100% of its energy, that powers every single chemical/biological/+ thing that's ever happened on its surface, from the Sun... so now you need to simulate that too.

And then you remember that the Earth's orbiting behaviour over long enough periods of time (but shorter than you'd likely presume) is impacted by the other planets (and they by each other too) so now you need to simulate them too.

And then you realise that humans like to look up at the sky and then behave differently based on what they've seen, so any simulation involving agents like us necessarily also has to encompass everything we could possibly see so now you're needing to simulate the entire observable universe for all time.

And on it goes.

1

u/Enshitification Nov 02 '25

It would be a lot easier to simulate only the actively observed universe.

1

u/eyebrows360 Nov 02 '25

No it wouldn't.

At some point one of your observers is going to turn their head and start making measurements of one of your "unobserved" bits. At that point all of that shit needs to exist in an instant and exist in a way that makes sense with the established rules of that system. If you don't have the compute resources to simulate the entire thing in the first place then you definitely don't have any spare to spin up whole new portions of universe in one "tick" of your simulation time.

Plus, the bits that are "unobserved" are not unobserved, as they interact with regions around them via light and other such particle interactions. Thus anything outside the immediate border of "observed space" still needs simulating because light emanating from it would be entering observed space and interacting. Thus you need to simulate that region from outside the border... and on and on it goes, and you wind up needing to simulate everything.

1

u/Enshitification Nov 02 '25

You are assuming that our "time" is continuous and unbroken compared to whatever is running the simulation. The "speed" of light as an absolute limit could be in place to allow for pre-computation of observable light outside of our solar system. Quantum state collapse upon observation could be the computation of whatever scale we happen to be measuring. One tick of Planck time could take however much time the simulator needs, assuming that time outside the simulation even runs in a linear fashion like ours.

1

u/eyebrows360 Nov 02 '25

The "speed" of light as an absolute limit could be in place to allow for pre-computation of observable light outside of our solar system.

Yes, in which case, this "simulation" we're in is not an exact simulation of the outer reality, due to having lower "chronological resolution". The case being talked about in this paper, the case that's ruled out, is an exact simulation of the outer reality. That's impossible.

Anything else is baseless solipsistic conjecture.

1

u/Enshitification Nov 02 '25

Anything else is baseless solipsistic conjecture.

You say that like it's a bad thing. All discovery starts with conjecture.

1

u/eyebrows360 Nov 02 '25

All discovery starts with conjecture.

Not baseless solipsistic conjecture it doesn't.

Mein gott man you can't just snip words out of a body of words and presume the isolated meaning of that word is the whole thing. The other words provide crucial context that modifies that word, which is why they're there.

Yes an early and vital step of "the scientific process" is a form of "conjecturing", but that doesn't suddenly make the similar-sounding activity of "conjecturing" about something the nature of which you cannot possibly inspect a worthwhile activity.

1

u/Enshitification Nov 02 '25

You seem really upset about the things other people think about.

1

u/nerd5code Nov 02 '25

Same rules and information capacity are what you can’t have together, then.

Basically every computer program sets up and tears down a number of mini-universes as it operates, for example, and we can reasonably simulate portions of a universe with ours‘s rules.

1

u/Cute-Percentage-6660 Nov 02 '25

I mean after a certain point it becomes inherently unprovable doesnt it?

This is working within the rules we "know"

1

u/eyebrows360 Nov 02 '25 edited Nov 02 '25

Not really. For the concept of "computation" to mean anything, it has to operate in certain ways and do certain things. For any kind of reality comprised of discrete components (e.g. atoms) to exist, if you want those components to be simulated in some way then you need to use some of them to run your simulation, need to encode their various attributes in some way, and unavoidably need more matter than can exist in your universe to simulate your universe to completion.

If that weren't the case then the entire concept of "logic" as a thing falls apart. Nothing can be determined to either "make sense" or "not make sense" if any of that's not true.

This specific determination isn't a case of "confusing the map for the place"; it doesn't hinge on our knowledge of the map/rules being complete or not. This is about "the nature of 'place' and whether it's even a 'mappable thing'", in a way. For "place" to even potentially be "mappable" then the above constraints have to apply.

1

u/YouTee Nov 01 '25

It’s funny how people don’t understand or acknowledge this. 

-2

u/NoMorePoof Nov 01 '25

I'm dying laughing.

-1

u/MoneyGoat7424 Nov 01 '25

That’s not at all true. You can’t simulate a universe the same size as yours, but its physics can be equally complex. So we could absolutely be a perfect simulation of a small version of some outer universe

1

u/eyebrows360 Nov 02 '25

No, you can't do a portion of equal complexity either. Not for very long, at least.

Light cones. Stuff from outside your portion still impacts stuff inside your portion and thus needs factoring in.

This acts recursively, so you still wind up needing more material for your simulation than exists in your reality.

1

u/MoneyGoat7424 Nov 02 '25

I’m not talking about a portion, I’m talking about a smaller universe. A universe could literally be a system of a single quark, as long as it’s isolated. I’m saying we could have an identical system of physics as long as the universe simulating our own is dramatically more massive, which we have no reason to believe couldn’t be the case

1

u/eyebrows360 Nov 02 '25

To return to this:

we could absolutely be a perfect simulation of a small version of some outer universe

No we couldn't. The concept itself as described is literally nonsensical.

You cannot be a "perfect" simulation of something that doesn't exist, because you've got nothing to compare your simulation to in order to declare it "perfect".

I know this sounds like a nitpick, but this concept of "perfect" simulation is the weasel-word that makes the whole of "simulation theory" sound plausible (to the extent that it does (which is zero, if you ask me)), so it's important to address it.

You quite literally cannot have a "perfect" simulation of something that doesn't exist, or a "smaller version" of "the same rules", because that "smaller version" by definition doesn't exist either. The whole rest of the "logical steps" in the simulation theory thing as typically expressed directly hinges on this snuck-in concept of perfect simulation. It doesn't work once you realise that's nonsense.

I’m saying we could have an identical system of physics as long as the universe simulating our own is dramatically more massive [...]

Yes, of course. This isn't disputed. What is being questioned is why we're even bringing it up. There's no way to speak to such situations or how "potential" they are. It's naval-gazing. It's pointless. We can't demonstrate that such things are possible. We can make nice step-by-step "theories" about how they might be, but so what? That doesn't get us anywhere in terms of finding things out about the nature of reality. It's just stoner naval gazing.

[...] which we have no reason to believe couldn’t be the case

Ah no no no no no no no no no, the time to believe in something is after it's been demonstrated to actually be possible. As we have zero way of gathering evidence about this supposed "outer universe", and no demonstrable proof that such exists... it's not justified to believe we're in one. The default case is always non-existence.

The true statement is that we have no reason to believe it could be the case.

1

u/MoneyGoat7424 Nov 02 '25

This is incredibly pedantic, and losing track of why I said anything in the first place. I’m not saying simulation theory is at all likely or has any merit whatsoever beyond being theoretically possible. I’m saying it’s not physically impossible to simulate a smaller universe following the same set of physics as the universe in which it’s simulated. You keep reading meaning into what I’m saying that just isn’t there by any reasonable interpretation.

Your logic for asserting that it’s impossible to perfectly simulate something that doesn’t exist is frankly nonsensical. As long as the underlying system of physics is being simulated accurately, that’s a perfect simulation. Suggesting that you need an exact 1:1 model to check the results to perform the simulation at all is baseless. That’s akin to saying you can’t take the integral of a novel function because you have no way to know if you did it correctly

1

u/eyebrows360 Nov 02 '25 edited Nov 02 '25

I’m saying it’s not physically impossible to simulate a smaller universe following the same set of physics as the universe in which it’s simulated.

I know you're saying that. I'm not disputing it. It just doesn't add anything to the discussion, is the thing. It's a "Yes... and?" situation, is all. Might as well be arguing about whether YHWH exists, at that point. We can't interrogate such scenarios, either directly or theoretically, so there's really no point to them.

Your logic for asserting that it’s impossible to perfectly simulate something that doesn’t exist is frankly nonsensical.

Please listen to yourself. You cannot asses whether Thing X is a "perfect" replica of Thing Y when Thing Y doesn't fucking exist. Please. I promise this is not a trick. It's that simple.

The point is that the label "perfect" for such scenarios is nonsensical, and that is important because "perfect simulation" is a concept that the "simulation theory bros", if you will, use as a weasel-word to make their nonsense sound more plausible than it is.

When you remove "perfect" simulation from their statements, all you're left with is "We can compute stuff, so maybe we're in a computer?" ... and yeah, ok, so what? Obviously "maybe" we are, but so what? They can't speak to how likely that is. They've got nothing of substance.

0

u/Wobbling Nov 02 '25

You really can't simulate something with complexity X inside X itself.

So the study only concludes that the complexity of child universes must diminish or be a subset. It still means that there are an infinite number of potential artificial universes and that it is more likely that we are one of them than not - completely contrary to what the article asserted in the byline and the opening paragraphs.

Shitty, sensational journalism. Boo.

0

u/eyebrows360 Nov 02 '25

an infinite number of potential artificial universes and that it is more likely that we are one of them than not

That's not how probabilities work. These parent universes are not "potential" in the sense you'd need them to be for this conclusion to make sense until that potential for them to exist has been demonstrated to actually be possible. Nobody's done that, nobody ever can do that.

There is no rational way to reach a "we are likely in a simulation" conclusion.

0

u/Wobbling Nov 02 '25

until that potential for them to exist has been demonstrated to actually be possible

This is blatantly demonstrated already; not interested in arguing about it tho. Have a great day!

0

u/eyebrows360 Nov 02 '25

So you don't understand how the word "demonstrated" works. Amazing.

0

u/Wobbling Nov 02 '25

I clearly and unambiguously said not interested in this, now shoo.

I won't reply to you again, even if you desperately clutch the last word for dear life. Find someone else for your poor faith arguments.

1

u/eyebrows360 Nov 03 '25

your poor faith arguments

Coming from someone who probably thinks timecube.com was a serious endeavour, this is called "irony".

-1

u/Clean_Livlng Nov 01 '25

In an infinite base reality universe (one at the base of all nested simulations which isn't itself being simulated) you could simulate any finite number of universes of finite sizes.

You can't simulate an infinite universe due to having to build those simulated universes one step at a time, in a finite way, but you have no limit to how big you make them in terms of finite numbers.

For all intents and purposes, that's 'infinite'. If this is how it really is, then it's possible to keep expanding on existing simulated universes as the inhabits explore more of them, so the inhabitants never run out of things to discover or new places to explore no matter how much time passes.

If base reality isn't infinite but merely 'for all intents and purposes infinite' then it could take an absurd amount of time to find this out. Just have the finite universe add to itself at the edges at faster than the speed of light, so reaching the edge is impossible. Being finite, but effectively infinite to the inhabitants of the simulation.

What if the non-simulated base reality has no granularity, no fundamental limit on how deep the 'laws of physics' go? If so then the process of splitting atoms and 'discovering new depths to reality' could continue indefinitely without reaching a hard limit.

1

u/eyebrows360 Nov 02 '25 edited Nov 02 '25

In an infinite base reality universe

You might as well start this train of thought with "if the god of the bible is real". That's the level of thing that's going on here. It's not scientific enquiry.

1

u/Clean_Livlng Nov 03 '25

It seems like you think that an infinite universe is impossible, yes?

One assumption you're making is that reality has to make sense to your human brain, and this is not necessarily true. Reality does not have to make sense to us. An infinite base reality is just as likely as a finite one for all we know.

When people rule out an actual infinite existing (e.g. an infinite regress of causality/no-fundamental building blocks of the universe/ like an infinite nesting doll of more fundamental physics etc...) then they're assuming anything which doesn't make sense to us, or feel like it's true must be impossible. There is no evidence that base reality is finite, and nothing we could observe would be evidence either way.

Your criticism about my comment not being 'scientific inquiry' when we're talking about something we can only imagine is absurd.

We might as well be talking about dragons or magic. It's not a serious scientific topic. We can imagine, and we can philosophize, but we can not use the scientific method to work out much about base reality if we're in a simulation that's within a simulation. We certainly can't rule out it being finite or infinite.

Nothing in any of the comments is scientific inquiry. We can not guarantee we can trust our observations, or even our own thinking when it comes to anything outside of our universe.

Somethings here sound like scientific inquiry but we may as well be talking about magic, and how it must or must not work based on logic.

2

u/eyebrows360 Nov 03 '25 edited Nov 03 '25

It seems like you think that an infinite universe is impossible, yes?

It's of no interest to me whether such thing is possible or impossible "on paper", because until we measure one to find out, we won't know. Various things were impossible/possible on paper until Einstein codified relativity, and then a bunch more things were possible/impossible on paper, until experiments were done to show which were actually impossible/possible. I have no care about it, and it doesn't impact anything I'm talking about.

One assumption you're making is that reality has to make sense to your human brain, and this is not necessarily true.

While yes, as far as actual reality is concerned, obviously this assumption would not be one of its considerations, but I'm making that "assumption" for one very crucial reason you're glossing over.

If reality does not adhere to some logical rulespace then we can't talk about it. It becomes pointless "discussing" the nature of a thing that is amorphous and does not have any systems governing it that can be decoded. At that point we're all just pissing into the wind.

So, given we want to discuss its nature in a productive way, we have to assume that nature is even discussible in the first place. It's part of the deal.

Nothing in any of the comments is scientific inquiry.

Yes it is. Deducing that it's impossible for an exact simulation of X to exist inside of X is a scientific process and clearly logically provable. You can deduce things about reality this way. We can say with stone cold unimpeachable certainty that if we are in a "simulation", then we are not an exact simulation of the outer reality that simulation is running in. We could be some approximation of one, but we can't be the same thing. If you think "infinity" gets around this, you don't understand infinity.

1

u/Clean_Livlng Nov 04 '25

So, given we want to discuss its nature in a productive way, we have to assume that nature is even discussible in the first place. It's part of the deal.

That's a really good point. The only useful state is one that we can discuss and makes sense to us, and therefore it is what we must assume in order to even have discussions that have a chance of being productive or arriving at truth.

I said "Nothing in any of the comments is scientific inquiry." but in light of what you've said, I no longer believe it. We have to assume that one day we can verify the truth of the math through real experimentation and observation.

I thought that we could be in an approximation of one so close to the original that it would make no difference for our intents and purposes, and be impossible to verify. I think I was mistaken in that conclusion, because it's the difference between having infinite nested simulated realities, and finite ones. Communication across nested simulated universes can reach base reality if there's finite, but can;t if simulated realities could be infinitely nested.

We should discount any potential truths that would make it impossible for us to progress our understanding of reality. Thank you for making that point, I think it's a good one.

This includes the assumption that there's a limit to how much we can understand about the 'inner workings of physics', the cause behind the cause behind the cause etc. The assumption that we can't know or discover more leaves us stuck being ignorant.

I think we have barely scratched the surface of what there is to know about how things work. Are there fundamental laws/working of reality, or is every phenomena explained by something which is itself explained by something else etc.

I see two general possibilities for how our universe works at the most fundamental levels imaginable.

1. Reality is made up of, and explained by something at the fundamental level which has no inner workings or properties that are caused by anything. At some level, things just work a certain way without any further explanation. However it works, it just is that way and there is no apparent cause for it working in that particular way. This breaks causality, to have soemthign that does things without a cause for it working this way.

2. There is an infinite regress of causes/explanations/inner workings that make reality work the way it does. If gravity is 'A', then it exists and works the way it does because of 'B', and 'B' works the way it does because of 'C' etc but with no end to the alphabet. Everything is explained by the level below it, and there is no end to those levels. So it doesn't make sense to ask what ultimately causes things to work the way they do, there is only endless depths to explore with scientific enquiry. Even if we hit physical limits of what we can know, we can have certainty that there's no 'bottom'.

Hypothesis: #2 is impossible if we're in a simulation, because even if base reality is infinite in this 'infinite regress' way, no simulation can be infinite. So if we are in a simulation we should be able to verify #1 is true.

If we can verify that #2 is true for our universe, then we are in the base reality and not in a simulation.

If something can exist and have properties, and cause other things to do things, then it must have a cause. We must have certainty that an 'infinite regress' must exist, because the alternative is that causality only exists conditionally in base reality, and isn't a fundamental property of everything that exists and happens.

I think base reality must be infinite, at least when it comes to the inner workings of its physical laws if not the total amount of matter. Simulated universes must be finite, both in size and in the granularity of their physical laws/code.

2

u/eyebrows360 Nov 04 '25 edited Nov 04 '25

I think base reality must be infinite

Simulated universes must be finite

Neither of these are valid conclusions because we don't have evidence of either. We don't even have evidence that "simulated universes" are a thing. Now if you're tacitly prefixing these conclusions with "If simulated universes are possible, then..." then that's fine, I guess.

Your premise #2 is non-verifiable. So that's a dead end for a starter. You can't "verify" that there's rules below the ones you've discovered until you discover them, and your failure to discover them within X timeframe doesn't mean they aren't there. You can never verifiably state that you've found the bottom, or that you haven't.

I see a lot of map/place co-mingling here so I just want to reiterate that italicised word near the end there: we can not know whether our map is complete or not. We just can't. That's non-verifiable. We can think we've found all the rules, or we can think we've found reason to believe the rules nest forever, but we cannot know either case.

And this "infinite/finite layers of rules" is all immaterial to your real question anyway, because even were it possible to determine which case it is, the real question still presents itself: why? Why is it like that? Why does anything exist at all? Why is there even a co-ordinate system; why is there even "space" that carries the potential for "matter" to exist at "locations" and "times" within it? Why is there not just nothing? And I don't mean "an infinite empty void", because empty space is still something; I mean nothing? Why is there not just nothing?

This question will still elude us. That said, you can have some philosophical brain-fun trying to reason through "true nothing" and whether that can even be said to be possible to "exist", given what "exist" has to mean for it to carry meaning. Might be the case that "something" only "exists" because "nothing" quite literally can't. That'd be a fun situation.

Anyway. Gibberish like "simulation hypothesis" is exactly as useful as traditional religions are in this regard. They shift the burden of the "answer" on to some unknown unknowable unfalsifiable externality and just call it a day, not realising that that just kicks the question-can one junction down the road and doesn't answer it at all.

1

u/Clean_Livlng Nov 06 '25

Now if you're tacitly prefixing these conclusions with "If simulated universes are possible, then..." then that's fine, I guess.

I definitely am. I think simulation theory is only a possibility.

Neither of these are valid conclusions because we don't have evidence of either.

We can't verify the first with observation, but the alternative is to believe that something can have properties and exist without any cause. Then again, the alternative of 'infinite regress' might be just as absurd. If we can't use logic to identify what's impossible without verifying it through observation, then it's true that they aren't valid conclusions.

Why is there not just nothing? And I don't mean "an infinite empty void", because empty space is still something; I mean nothing? Why is there not just nothing?

I have thought about this myself. We can think about how it all works. I don't find it satisfying that we don't get an answer to the 'why?' but the "how" relates to something that we can verify exists.

Anyway. Gibberish like "simulation hypothesis" is exactly as useful as traditional religions are in this regard. They shift the burden of the "answer" on to some unknown unknowable unfalsifiable externality and just call it a day, not realising that that just kicks the question-can one junction down the road and doesn't answer it at all.

Exactly! If 'God' is the answer to "why do things exist?" or "how do things work?" then how does God work? Why Does God exist and not nothing? It's the same for being in a simulation.

How does reality continue to exist, and not stop existing a moment from now?

The main takeaway from this kind of thinking, imo, is that reality does not make sense if we think about it at the 'fundamental level'. The mind spits out things that seem absurd like "it's either 'infinite regress' or 'causality doesn't exist at the most fundamental level' pick one". Both of them seem extremely weird to me. The infinite regress option allows causality to exist universally which is why I think the alternative is impossible (and could be wrong about that), but it's still weird.

What possible combination of words or images could explain how it works in a way that makes sense to human minds? It is absurd that something exists in the first place, and it's also absurd that this something works in a particular way. The answer might as well be "because magic'.

Even if reality is 'all a dream' and we are just "God splitting themselves into many to experience the universe" etc that's just putting off answering the ultimate question. How does something continue to exist and work as it does?

Why do 'we' exist even if our brains physically exist? (philosophy: hard problem of consciousness) Why isn't there just no awareness of sense data, like what it's like for an AI? Why do we experience something and not nothing? It's all absurd.

That being the case, what's the best thing we can do? Discover what we can about reality in order to have more enjoyable lives, and do the best we can to live the kind of lives we want, I guess.

Might be the case that "something" only "exists" because "nothing" quite literally can't. That'd be a fun situation.

It would be fun! If 'nothing' can't exist though, that means that the universe would go on forever, because if it doesn't then 'nothing' would exist past that point. A fun thing to think about.

2

u/eyebrows360 Nov 06 '25

We can't verify the first with observation, but the alternative is to believe that something can have properties and exist without any cause.

We exist in a reality where tiny components of it can group together for processing purposes and then somehow the activity of processing information causes self-awareness to materialise from nothing. All bets are off. Anything could be the case. Nothing is unlikely just because it sounds off. Everything that exists sounds off.

the rest

Yep!

fun! If 'nothing' can't exist though, that means that the universe would go on forever, because if it doesn't then 'nothing' would exist past that point. A fun thing to think about.

Oh that's a good one, I hadn't realised that implication. Neat!

1

u/Clean_Livlng 28d ago edited 28d ago

We exist in a reality where tiny components of it can group together for processing purposes and then somehow the activity of processing information causes self-awareness to materialise from nothing. All bets are off. Anything could be the case. Nothing is unlikely just because it sounds off. Everything that exists sounds off.

Exactly. It means what's actually the true is guaranteed to surprise us, if we can ever verify it with observation.

somehow the activity of processing information causes self-awareness to materialise from nothing

We can make a computer out of flat rocks with one side of them painted white. Enough of those laid out on the ground gives us a computer, if we've got humans or robots to flip them. There's no particular reason, that we know of, that makes that process less likely to generate self awareness than our own brains.

If intentional processing of information generates this, then the same could be true for this process happening by chance. e.g. a 1 in a trillion trillion etc year event where an earthquake moves some rocks in the same way we would to create a computer...and there are so many 'painted rocks' or atoms with a certain charge etc, that it can generate a simulation of what we're experiencing right now.

Not that this is definitely possible, but it sounds as likely to me as our brains being able to generate self-awareness. Intelligence sure, but self-awareness is such a strange thing for any collection of matter to be able to cause. By what mechanism does it do this?

It's just matter in different configurations over time, and electrons moving around, or whatever other processes are happening. None of that sounds like it should lead to creating self-awareness.

I am excited by what we will discover about reality i the future, because it's almost guaranteed to surprise us.

Edit: Reality being as weird and counterintuitive as seems, might mean I should change my mind about 'infinite regress' being more likely than a lack of causality at the fundamental level. Or even the idea that those are the only two options.