this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2025
19 points (78.8% liked)

Philosophy

1702 readers
1 users here now

Discussion of philosophy

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
metic@lemmy.world
19
Mathematical proof debunks the idea that the universe is a computer simulation (phys.org)
submitted 1 month ago by arendjr@programming.dev to c/philosophy@lemmy.world
17 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/56676015

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Artisian@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'm sorry but 10 day review time from this journal? And it's very much not a math journal.

At best, this is an argument that if our universe does non-computable things, then we can't be in a classical simulation. But if our universe does non-computable things, then CHURCH TURING IS WRONG, and we can build more powerful computers (or there should be some serious experimental barrier, which I do not see here), so we are again plausibly in a simulation.

In short, I don't buy this at all. Headline is literally false.

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

But if our universe does non-computable things, then CHURCH TURING IS WRONG, and we can build more powerful computers

Not necessarily. We could be in a simulation in a computer that can only exist in a universe with different physical laws

[–] Artisian@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

They specifically claim to refute the 'simulations all the way down' anthropic-flavored argument which goes as follows:

  1. We can make pretty good simulations already

  2. Later we'll want to make more and more detailed

  3. Therefore most folks that exist are inside simulations

  4. Ergo we're probably in a simulation

If our universe allows us to build more powerful computers, then this argument goes through just the same as it did with Church-Turing.

(I agree with your broader point: every thing our universe does is a new requirement on the universe simulating ours. But I don't think this is a particularly relevant observation for the 'are we in a simulation' question? Anything our universe does is tautologically something a universe can do.)