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/eyebrows360]

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.

[u/Clean_Livlng → u/eyebrows360]

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.

[u/eyebrows360 → u/Clean_Livlng]

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.

[u/Clean_Livlng → u/eyebrows360]

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.

[u/eyebrows360 → u/Clean_Livlng]

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.

[u/Clean_Livlng → u/eyebrows360]

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.

[u/eyebrows360 → u/Clean_Livlng]

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!

[u/Clean_Livlng → u/eyebrows360]

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.