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.”

  • thingsiplay@beehaw.org
    13·
    8 days ago

    that no computer could ever simulate.

    That assumes that the über-universe has the same laws of physics. We cannot, and will never be able to tell if this is a simulation universe. These professors assume that the other universe simulating ours is very similar. The only thing they could proof is, that the universe which simulates ours, cannot have the same laws of physics. Maybe that.

    • megopie@beehaw.orgEnglish
      4·
      8 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.

      • thingsiplay@beehaw.org
        2·
        8 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
          31·
          8 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
            4·
            8 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).

  • Sina@beehaw.org
    7·
    8 days ago

    The research is interesting, but there is so much wrong with this headline. For instance it’s relying on a definition of a computer is, but it’s not really prepared of a computer+ appearing. Another problem is that this doesn’t deal with the possibility that it’s still turtles all the way down, but each turtle is less complex than the one below it…

  • spit_evil_olive_tips@beehaw.org
    2·
    7 days ago

    let’s play a fun game where we read a “breaking news” story about a scientific “discovery” and count the reasons to be skeptical about it

    by Patty Wellborn, University of British Columbia

    …

    Dr. Mir Faizal, Adjunct Professor with UBC Okanagan’s Irving K. Barber Faculty of Science

    right off the bat - you have a conflict of interest where the person writing this is from the same university as the lead author.

    this article is stylized to read like “news” but it’s probably more accurate to treat it like you would a press release.

    and in fact, this same text is on UBC’s website where it explicitly says “Content type: Media Release”

    Patty Wellborn’s author page there seems to indicate that writing this kind of press release is a major part of her job

    and his international colleagues, Drs. Lawrence M. Krauss

    huh…that name sounds familiar…let me go check his wikipedia page and oh look there’s a Controversies section with “Relationship with Jeffrey Epstein” and “Allegations of sexual misconduct” subsections.

    Their findings, published in the Journal of Holography Applications in Physics

    that journal is published by Damghan University in Iran

    there’s a ton of xenophobia and Islamophobia that gets turned up to 11 when people in the English-speaking world start discussing Iran, so I don’t want to dismiss this journal out-of-hand…but their school of physics has 2 full professors?

    if I was going to find out “oh Damghan is actually well-regarded for physics research” or something that’s not what I’d expect to see

    but anyway, let’s look at the paper itself

    except, hold on, it’s not a paper, it’s a letter:

    Document Type : Letter

    that’s an important difference:

    Letters: This is a very ambiguous category, primarily defined by being short, often <1000 words. They may be used to report a single piece of information, often from part of a larger study, or may be used to respond to another paper. These may or may not go out for peer review - for example, I recently had a paper accepted where the decision was made entirely by the editor.

    reading a bit further:

    Received: June 6, 2025; Accepted: June 17, 2025

    this is “proving” something fundamental about the nature of the universe…and the entire review process took 11 calendar days? (basically one work week, the 6th was a Friday and the 17th was a Tuesday)