Interesting Engineering published an article about a new mathematical study that dismantles the simulation hypothesis once and for all.
The idea that we might be living inside a vast computer simulation, much like in The Matrix, has fascinated philosophers and scientists for years. But a new study from researchers at the University of British Columbia's Okanagan campus has delivered a decisive blow to that theory.
According to Dr. Mir Faizal, Adjunct Professor at UBC Okanagan's Irving K. Barber Faculty of Science, and his international collaborators, the structure of reality itself makes simulation impossible.
Their work shows that no computer, no matter how advanced, could ever reproduce the fundamental workings of the universe.
Their research goes further than rejecting the simulation theory. It suggests that reality is built on a kind of understanding that cannot be reduced to computational rules or algorithms.
The researchers approached the simulation question through mathematics and physics rather than philosophy. They explored whether the laws governing the universe could, in theory, be recreated by a computer system.
"It has been suggested that the universe could be simulated," says Dr. Faizal. "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."
[Journal Reference]: https://jhap.du.ac.ir/article_488.html
(Score: 5, Informative) by Whoever on Tuesday November 04, @07:41PM (2 children)
How do we know that these scientists are not agents of whoever controls the simulation, put in the simulation to discourage others from believing in the theory that we are in a simulation?
It's my theory that I am the only conscious being and the rest of you are NPCs.
(Score: 5, Funny) by looorg on Tuesday November 04, @09:06PM
Clearly some scientists took the blue pill. Or was it the red pill. I forget which was which. Better take both to be safe.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 05, @02:22AM
> I am the only conscious being and the rest of you are NPCs.
Been there, done that, only took a little acid for that trip, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism [wikipedia.org]
The Wiki article goes on to describe several variants...
There's also a song, Punk Solipsist https://users.cs.duke.edu/~brd/Music/Harmful/songlist/punk_solipsist.html [duke.edu]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Samantha Wright on Tuesday November 04, @07:47PM (11 children)
We discussed this pretty extensively on the green-and-white site a few days ago. The article is full of terrible hand-waving and should never have been published, which is perhaps why it appears in an obscure Iranian journal. Its insults include:
- declaring that computers cannot understand "Godelian truths" but humans can, without providing a rigorous definition of what it means to "understand" anything
- claiming that "cognitive processes exploit quantum collapse," which is completely unsupported by biomedical research
- assuming that only a universe that is classically computable could qualify as a simulation, when there's no reason at all to rule out a simulation conducted by a quantum computer
Of course, most simulationists are flagrant human garbage looking for any excuse to justify their nihilistic values, but you can't put out a trash fire by pouring rancid wine on it.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Tuesday November 04, @09:39PM
I mean, from a philosophical or ethical standpoint: Let's say that the universe is some sort of MMORPG. That doesn't make you not a selfish jerk if your version of living your fantasies is to be a selfish jerk.
That's why I in gaming I generally dislike playing evil runs or playing against humans: I don't get joy out of being mean to anybody.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 4, Funny) by VLM on Tuesday November 04, @11:38PM
This was also more or less the consensus on the Mongolian Basket Weaving Forum. As per long standing tradition there were about five threads on the same topic there, so possibly one of the other threads disagreed.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by vux984 on Wednesday November 05, @12:08AM (5 children)
"- declaring that computers cannot understand "Godelian truths" but humans can, without providing a rigorous definition of what it means to "understand" anything"
I took that more as that we simply understand that they exist; not that we have any innate capability to do deal with them or apply them. And similarly, its not the case that a computer has any innate need to "understand them", but in order to simulate a system in a computer one must know all the rules that need to be simulated. Essentially if the universe cannot be axiomatized, then we can't write down all the rules the algorithm must follow, and if we can't do that... we can't use an algorithm to simulate it.
So I don't really see what your complaint here is.
"- claiming that "cognitive processes exploit quantum collapse,"
This seems tangential to the argument though, and not especially relevant.
"- assuming that only a universe that is classically computable could qualify as a simulation "
I'm not sure the paper actually makes THAT assertion though. It seemed obvious, to me at least, that they were just attempting to prove it couldn't be simulated in a "computer". Ie it couldn't be computed, in a 'turing machine'.
That it could be simulated in something *else* would remain plausible I suppose. If we could find something that could simulate the universe that'd probably give us a lot of insight into the universe, but knowing a computer can't do it, is itself pretty interesting, if the proof is valid. And since we don't really have a candidate for that something else yet, it suggests our ability to simulate a universe is not ... imminent.
There's a nice xkcd where they arrange rocks in patterns, and update them according to rules and the idea is that by doing this they are representing the state of the universe and simulating the universe. It's elegant metaphor, and its beautiful because there is absolutely no difference between that and how a super computer works. And i really struggle to believe that a guy moving pebbles around on a beach could be the underpinnings of all "reality".
It would be pretty interesting to me, if we can prove that isn't sufficient.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Wednesday November 05, @02:46AM (2 children)
One of the areas where the paper fails is in assuming one can't know all the rules. For glaring example, what's the physical characteristics of an uncomputable problem? They merely assuming such a problem can fit into the universe and as a result somehow that means non-algorithmic rules.
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Wednesday November 05, @05:49PM (1 child)
How did it "assume" that? The paper identified such problems, and addresses that issue quite directly.
One that is mathematically undecideable. (e.g. like the halting problem)
They argue that simulating the universe (in a computer) is equivalent to solving the halting problem which is not possible; and they argue a number of undecidable (non-computable) physics phenomena essentially embed the halting problem.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 06, @01:38AM
Let's review the basic argument. The undecidable argument is based on the following: that a sufficiently complex algorithmically generated system has undecidable problems, assume without justification that simulating the universe is somehow remotely related to deciding an undecidable problem, and thus can't be simulated by an algorithmic system again without justification. The very concepts and theorems described so far show how undecidable problems can easily fit within an algorithmic system. Classic case of stolen concept fallacy.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by mhajicek on Wednesday November 05, @07:58AM (1 child)
That may be an argument that we cannot make a computer in this universe which can accurately simulate this universe, but we know nothing about a potential parent universe which may have completely different laws.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Wednesday November 05, @05:18PM
Absolutely.
But proving we can't simulate our own universe with a turing machine, would itself be a feat, (if true, then it means we can't create universes in computers) and it further at least implies at least it can't be turtles all the way down with universes like ours simulating universes like ours simulating universes like ours...
You are right of course, that this doesn't rule out simulation by other than a 'computer' from a universe with possibly completely different properties.
But arguing that 'hey we could still be a simulation hosted by a parent universe with unknown and unknowable properties using some mechanism we have no hypothesis for...' is 'moving the goal posts'.
(Score: 2) by bd on Wednesday November 05, @11:56AM
- "but you can't put out a trash fire by putting rancid wine on it"
Actually, you can?! Better than drinking the stuff.
I agree the paper is clearly trash.
But for me, the whole debate is somewhat inconsequential, as whoever runs the supposed simulation clearly wants to look at things circling around other things. It's overwhelmingly a space simulator, not Civ III or the sims.
There is no evidence of quantisation of space or other optimisations, so no hope for new physics, simulation or not...
What exactly would change if either proposition is true?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 05, @03:12PM
AFAIK math by itself doesn't produce physical phenomena, qualia, nor consciousness. So if the universe is a simulation, it's not a simulation based only on our known math.
(Score: 2) by ichthus on Wednesday November 05, @04:29PM
(Score: 2) by ledow on Wednesday November 05, @10:05AM
Turing and Gödel strike again!
(Score: 3, Funny) by Mojibake Tengu on Wednesday November 05, @02:35PM (1 child)
Dear Universe,
Please, cease to simulate stupid scientists.
Thank you.
Rust programming language offends both my Intelligence and my Spirit.
(Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 06, @10:58AM
http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff300/fv00279.htm [purrsia.com]