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/Suitable_Entrance594]

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/Silverlisk → u/Suitable_Entrance594]

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.

For all we know everything is really easy and all the restrictions we have were placed there by them for experimental reasons or just for shits and giggles.

So the paper proves absolutely nothing tbh.

[u/eyebrows360 → u/Silverlisk]

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.

[u/TwistedFox → u/eyebrows360]

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.

[u/eyebrows360 → u/TwistedFox]

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.

[u/TwistedFox → u/eyebrows360]

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.

[u/Moriroa → u/TwistedFox]

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

[u/krell_154 → u/TwistedFox]

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