It's a plot device beloved by science fiction: our entire universe might be a simulation running on some advanced civilization's supercomputer. But new research from UBC Okanagan has mathematically proven this isn't just unlikely—it's impossible.

It’s a plot device beloved by science fiction: our entire universe might be a simulation running on some advanced civilization’s supercomputer. But new research from UBC Okanagan has mathematically proven this isn’t just unlikely—it’s impossible.

Dr. Mir Faizal, Adjunct Professor with UBC Okanagan’s Irving K. Barber Faculty of Science, and his international colleagues, Drs. Lawrence M. Krauss, Arshid Shabir and Francesco Marino have shown that the fundamental nature of reality operates in a way that no computer could ever simulate.

Their findings, published in the Journal of Holography Applications in Physics, go beyond simply suggesting that we’re not living in a simulated world like The Matrix. They prove something far more profound: the universe is built on a type of understanding that exists beyond the reach of any algorithm.

“It has been suggested that the universe could be simulated. If such a simulation were possible, the simulated universe could itself give rise to life, which in turn might create its own simulation. This recursive possibility makes it seem highly unlikely that our universe is the original one, rather than a simulation nested within another simulation,” says Dr. Faizal. “This idea was once thought to lie beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. However, our recent research has demonstrated that it can, in fact, be scientifically addressed.”

  • megopie@beehaw.orgEnglish
    9·
    3 days ago

    It’s a disproval of a specific theory, that if it was possible to simulate a universe that in turn could do the same, then there is probably an infinite series of simulations. And since it would be very unlikely that we’d be the first in the series, then we’re probably a simulation as well.

    It’s also equally unlikely that we’d be the last simulation in an infinite chain, so if we can’t simulate a universe, we’re probably not a simulation ether.

    • ButteryMonkey@piefed.socialEnglish
      4·
      2 days ago

      Why would it be unlikely for us to be an end point, though? assuming an infinite chain from all spawned universes is kinda just silliness, imho.

      If this is some big deal simulation (as in not common or easy, but like one simulation per universe) it would need several rounds of testing with simpler or randomized states to ensure it even works well enough for full prod. Sure those universes probably wouldn’t be maintained indefinitely, but from the inside it would be identical. There would necessarily be several of these -per chain link-. Plus if it’s for research, why wouldn’t they try simulating “impossible” universes with different physics than their own? I mean we do it, and we are nowhere near this level of complexity.

      If simulation becomes trivially easy in just some of the universes, though… Everyone who plays sandboxy games plays through several really shit runs while they figure out what they are doing, before finally getting somewhere. And then half the time those runs get abandoned as well for whatever reason (like having a killer new idea, or some event happened that can’t be recovered from). I see no reason universe simulation, should it get trivially easy, would be any different. Some game which entities set up and play out, or abandon for something better… or maybe they are fucking around with mods and just testing stuff out so it doesn’t need to be complete in that way. (e.g. in rimworld a dev test map is tiny, and spawns with zero configurations, just random simplified spawning to test things, and you may need to spawn dozens of these to sort out issues.)

      And if that’s the case, that for any reason there are far more end points than links in chains (like tassel fringe rather than chain), I see no reason to assume we would have physics that allow us to be a link rather than an end, since ends would be infinitely more common.

    • scratchee@feddit.ukEnglish
      7·
      2 days ago

      Always seemed a stupid theory anyway.

      If you simulate a computer doing a difficult calculation, you cannot skip the cost of the calculation. If a universe were a simulation containing another universe in a simulation, then the outer computer is processing the cost of simulating 2 universes, so it was either over-engineered for the original task, or the second universe is parasitising the processing available to the first universe. Either way, running 1 big universe is probably significantly more efficient than running a concentric series of ever more inefficient virtual universes inside virtual universes.

      Tldr: if we’re in a simulation, we’re either right at the top, or we’re a dumbed down bottom tier universe inside the 20-dimensional computer of a bored hyper intelligent being beyond our ability to imagine, and we’re the equivalent to a pond slime experiment.

      • MajorHavoc@programming.dev
        4·
        2 days ago

        I agree it’s a stupid theory.

        But of course, if I designed the simulation, I don’t have to actually simulate any of the complex bits, I just have to alter each simulated person to remember successfully observing the results of the complex bits.

        Edit: Of course, my solution breaks the infitine chain of nested worlds anyway. I don’t have to simulate infitine nested worlds in my simulation’s computers - I just simulate a small believable set of memories of having done so. So even those infitine nested worlds are just paper cutouts of the real thing.

        I guess either way, I don’t spend infitine processing power, so the average person has a 50/50 chance of being inside or outside the top level simulation.

        Edit 2: But ironically, each person has 100% chance of believing that they are taking part in an infinite set of nested simulated worlds - if my simulated memories are believable enough.

    • thingsiplay@beehaw.org
      8·
      3 days ago

      But these are just thought experiments, which do not proof anything. I could also have some thought experiments and tell the odds based of our current knowledge. We have no clue and then talking about likelyhoods makes no sense. It’s like talking about infinity. Just thought experiments to me, not real science that proof the one or other.

      • megopie@beehaw.orgEnglish
        71·
        3 days ago

        The thing is that some people took it as proof and have built their assumptions about the world on that.

        This is paper is dispelling the idea that it’s even a plausible thought experiment.

        • thingsiplay@beehaw.org
          7·
          3 days ago

          The thought experiment (and this debunking) also assumes that the simulation is a perfect simulation of the “laws of physics”. I would even say, if even there were multiple such simulations (infinite), its not guaranteed that each of them are identical in their physics. Not only depends on the knowledge of their builders, also they might even want to adjust it.

          This possibility was never even in the equation (for or against the idea).

      • megopie@beehaw.orgEnglish
        11·
        2 days ago

        Ok, but we have no observations that would lead us to believe it is possible to do, let alone lead us believe it is likely the case. So it stays a thought experiment, not a plausible explanation.