- cross-posted to:
- science@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- science@lemmy.world
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).