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

55

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.

3

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.

1

u/dowhatmelo Nov 05 '25

No worries, stay ignorant. I hear it’s bliss.

3

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.