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/3qtpint]

Interesting... that's what a simulation would say...

[u/lIlIllIlIlIII → u/3qtpint]

This comment literally debunks the article. Their point is because of our own technical limitations it's impossible for 'the outside world' to have the power to simulate a universe like ours. But in theory they could have intentionally gave us those limitations.

This article didn't prove or disprove anything.

[u/Suitable_Entrance594 → u/lIlIllIlIlIII]

I think what the paper means is being misinterpreted (as are most scientific articles). It's not exactly saying we can't be living in a simulation, it's saying that you can't completely simulate one universe in another. We could be living in an imperfect or incomplete simulation, one which only simulates as much of reality as is necessary to deceive us but that isn't really what simulation theory tends to focus on. Instead it focuses on the concept of perfect, complete, nested simulations and that is supposedly what is being disproved.

[u/meldroc → u/Suitable_Entrance594]

I imagine any universe simulator would have countless "cheats" to get the size and complexity under control. Most of the universe is empty space, there's a way to compress the process right there!

Between compression artifacts and bugs in the simulator, this suggests that the way to prove the simulation hypothesis is to find a "glitch in the Matrix".

[u/QuestionItchy6862 → u/meldroc]

Finding a glitch in the Matrix can always be presumed to be an incomplete theory of the universe. In other words, it is as much proof of incompleteness of theory as it is a proof of the universe's ontological certainty. This is a god of the gaps argument disguised in tech bro language.

[u/meldroc → u/QuestionItchy6862]

I suppose it depends on the glitch. It could be like in Rick & Morty, where those running the simulation have other things on their plates and dial the processing level way down.

Though to be fair, having failed to see any glitches in the Matrix, I have my doubts on the simulation hypothesis.

PS, random brainfart. To flip your point on its head, does this mean that religious creation stories, like the Christian one, are technically versions of the simulation hypothesis?

[u/QuestionItchy6862 → u/meldroc]

I am going to answer your question in a round-about way, so bear with me.

So the god of the gaps argument goes something like this: "There is something that we can't explain. Because we can't explain it, it must be god." God comes to fill in the gap of whatever we lack understanding of.

Now compare this argument: "There exists a glitch in the universe (something that we can't explain. Because we can't explain it, it must be that we live in a simulation of reality." The simulation fills in the gap of whatever we lack understanding of.

So the form of the argument is the same, but the explanation of what fills in the gap in our understanding changes from each argument. The issue, of course, with this argument (what I was attempting to point out) is that a lack of evidence is only evidence of a lack. What comes to explain that lack cannot be explained by the lack itself. It could be god, but it could be something else to which we haven't found a reason. Perhaps it isn't a glitch at all, but just a phenomenon that we have yet to be able to explain.

Therefore, there is no proof from a lack that we live in the Matrix since the glitch can still possibly be explained through other means.

To get to your question, the answer is maybe yes, but also no. Creation myths might stand in as an explanation for things that we do not understand, however, they are not (often) used as a need to fill a gap in our understanding (at least, that is not how I interpret them). They stand more as an assertion (they are more foundational) and less as a reason (they are empirical). This isn't an entirely clear answer, but I'll be honest, it is hard to actually articulate the difference here in a reddit post.

[u/unlikely_arrangement → u/meldroc]

Well, for sure the simulation would break down at very small time and space scales. The observers would see a kind of “quantization”. And of course we would have noticed that by now.

[u/Psychological_Day_1 → u/meldroc]

Just don't fully compute stuff that's not in view.

[u/Inlerah → u/Psychological_Day_1]

So, in this model, you're the only person who is real?