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.

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.

  • CeffTheCeph@kbin.earth
    1·
    18 hours ago

    Thank you, this is helping. However, I am still not following your logic here, I do not know what you are referring to when you say I am missing the initial step?

    1. Assume that these proposals are correct.

    Is this the initial step? And if so, what are the proposals that are being assumed?

    There are many situations where we just have to agree to assume. If you read 14 and 36, you’ll find some of the core assumptions that go into this letter (both interesting ideas and the same authors so you can understand why they’d continue).

    I have read through the abstracts and fail to see a connection regarding assumptions in those papers and the assumptions in this proof. Can you please clarify further for me? What are the specific assumptions being made in these papers that are also being made in the proof?

    An assumption Faisal makes is the rejection of objective observability which is one of those things you either believe or don’t believe

    There are several different interpretations of quantum mechanics. There are very valid arguments in favor of and against every one of them. If you accept one interpretation over an other, would that not just imply you believe that the arguments in favor of that particular interpretation are more logically valid than the other arguments? And so, it follows that you would continue that line of logical reasoning in further interpretations of theory?

    I don’t understand how favoring objective collapse theory over objective observability is in any way making assumptions about how formal computational systems are logically constructed.