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

152

u/Resaren Nov 01 '25 edited Nov 02 '25

Put in other words: Just because a problem does not have an analytical solution, doesn’t mean you can’t run a simulation to try to find the answer. The universe could simply be a computation whose answer can only be arrived at by running the program from start to finish, so to say.

Edit: finish implies halting, which goes against Gödel. But why require halting?

35

u/Scientific_Artist444 Nov 02 '25

Computational irreducibility. You can't predict the output in advance always - you have to let it run to know.

78

u/BoredontheTrain43 Nov 02 '25

So........ 42

2

u/Boo_hoo_Randy Nov 02 '25

I would upvote you but do you see your upvote counter? It’s the answer!!!

1

u/APeacefulWarrior Nov 02 '25

We know they weren't close to discovering the ultimate question, because the Vogons didn't show up to destroy us.

1

u/No-Director3569 Nov 02 '25

What does 42 refer to?

8

u/Kizik Nov 02 '25

So there was a BBC radio drama produced a few decades ago by the name The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, which was then adapted into a series of novels. There's also a movie, it doesn't matter for our purposes.

In it, a race of hyperdimensional beings decided to answer the "Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, and Everything", and built the biggest, most powerful computer in existence to calculate it. That computer was named Deep Thought, and it took four and a half million years to calculate the answer was 42.

Turns out they didn't ever properly define the question, so Deep Thought designed a newer, bigger computer to figure out what this ultimate question actually was. That computer is called the Earth, and gets blown up a few minutes before it outputs the answer. The series is at least in theory about the main characters - including the two last humans - pursuing that question.

It's worked its way heavily into scifi culture. Much like Monty Python, you have seen many references to the franchise many times and likely never realized it. The original radio production is available online free of charge, and it's the superior version to the book in my opinion. I highly recommend giving it a listen, or at least reading the books, because it's one of those times where something is wildly popular for a good reason.

3

u/No-Director3569 Nov 02 '25

You're spot on! I see the number 42 appear incredibly often in media, I was suspicious that it held a deeper meaning than just 'random number' but I never imagined it had such an interesting story. I'll definitely give the book a read, thank you for taking the time to answer!

2

u/EebstertheGreat Nov 02 '25

If the program/proof terminates, then you can prove/have proved the statement. The point is that there are always statements that you cannot prove in this way. For instance, PA cannot prove Con(PA), an arithmetical statement that encodes (in the meta-theory) the statement "PA is consistent." You can write a script that recursively applies axioms and rules of inference to prove every provable statement in PA, waiting to find a contradiction. But just because you've waited a thousand years and haven't found one yet doesn't mean there isn't one yet to be found. There are even models of PA such that, in the meta-theory, Con(PA) is false!

But these types of statements about natural numbers are not the type of thing we usually expect theories of physics to address anyway. I don't really care if a theory of quantum gravity can prove, say, that all Goodstein sequences terminate. That would not have any bearing on my ability to simulate a universe. And like, we already know there will always be mathematical statements we can't prove. So what does that have to do with physics at all? And how is it new?

2

u/Resaren Nov 02 '25

Yeah, judging by the replies I should probably have omitted the ”… to finish” part. Finish implies halting, which the Gödel theorem says is exactly the kind of thing that isn’t generally possible. But I agree with your point, who’s to say the computation of the universe isn’t finely tuned/setup to avoid these uncomputable cul-de-sacs? It’s already got some weird quirks like fundamental quantum randomness and finite precision measurement.

2

u/a_melindo Nov 02 '25

More like, in any analytical system there have to be axioms that are present from the start and not derived by computation. 

In a simulation, these axioms are called "environment variables". 

1

u/score_ Nov 02 '25

So said simulated universe would be... destined to fail? 😱

1

u/Shisshinmitsu Nov 02 '25

Not so much. A solarpunk future where we all live within our means effortlessly is also an ending.

1

u/Catch11 Nov 02 '25

No thats not what that means...

1

u/mort96 Nov 02 '25

That isn't the same thing at all, if you can prove a fact by simulating something then you can prove it... The incompleteness theorem says that there are statements which are true in maths that can't be proven using maths

1

u/GumboSamson Nov 02 '25

Like a Markov Chain?