> Researchers have mathematically proven that the universe cannot be a computer simulation. Their paper in the Journal of Holography Applications in Physics shows that reality operates on principles beyond computation. Using Gödel’s incompleteness theorem, they argue that no algorithmic or computational system can fully describe the universe, because some truths, so called "Gödelian truths" require non algorithmic understanding, a form of reasoning that no computer or simulation can reproduce. Since all simulations are inherently algorithmic, and the fundamental nature of reality is non algorithmic, the researchers conclude that the universe cannot be, and could never be a simulation.https://news.ok.ubc.ca/2025/10/30/ubco-study-debunks-the-idea-that-the-universe-is-a-computer-simulation/
>>16833104> groundbreaking theoretical physics research> from ubco lol, lmao even
>>16833104Maybe we can't simulate a universe from inside our universe, but if there's something outside our universe simulating our universe how can these researchers possibly claim to know the technology the people outside our universe possess or how things out there work at all?
>>16833104> that no algorithmic or computational system can fully describe the universeIt doesn't need to. It only needs to describe the small part you can see.
>>16833104Peak midwit moment
oh wow, thats a WHOLE lot of assumptions
>>16833108This, it's obvious that you can't simulate it from inside. Whether it could be "simulated" or somehow created from outside, if such a thing exists, well nobody knows that.
>godel incompleteness citedaight I'm about to read some bullshit
>>16833104Circumcised golem article.
Retarded paper. Simulation theory is just creationism with extra steps. Simulated physics are indistinguishable from "real physics" within the simulation because they are the physics of that simulation.It is a retarded time wasting conjecture and retarded responses. Might as well debate Thomas Moore's bet about trying to go to heaven for as many religions as possible on the oft chance one is actually real.
Why did you delete the original post OP? The one I responded to point by point with references and destroyed your debate asshole? WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU AFRAID OF!?!The truth.....OP is afraid of the truth and he deleted my entire response to hide it.....many such cases. Deleted thread:https://warosu.org/sci/thread/16833680My responses:https://warosu.org/sci/thread/16833680#p16833705https://warosu.org/sci/thread/16833680#p16833715We can do this all night Sys Admin scum.........
>>16833800>Simulation theory is just creationism with extra steps.So what tho? Simulation Theory is a laid hypothesis and therefore Creationism is an equally valid hypothesis. In fact, at this point, the only hypothesis that doesn't seem valid is the non-hypothesis of "it just is bro, it's all random and shit. Just shut up and calculate." Lol.
>>16833108>>16833584How is it obvious? We can easily imagine individual bits and we can imagine axioms of our mathematics. So you think there is something more fundamental than individual bits of information?
>>16834029Outside the universe, if there is such a thing, could be completely different with different physics and things that make no sense to us inside our universe. It would be like a video game character discovering their world is actually running on a computer chip then assuming everything outside the computer must also be computer chips, but in reality there's a lot more going on
>>16834111I think you're missing my point. There possibly cannot be anything more fundamental than bits of information. How could anything be different at that level? Are you suggesting there may be other universes which have something else as the most fundamental property?
>>16833104That doesn't exclude the possibility of a computer in an universe with vastly different physical laws than ours being capable of simulating our universe.
Proving the universe can't be a simulation and proving the universe can't be a computer simulation isn't the same thing.
>Together, these results imply that a wholly algorithmic “Theory ofEverything” is impossible: certain facets of reality will remain computationally undecidable and can beaccessed only through non-algorithmic understandingIs there anything that would prevent us from tapping into these "certain facets of reality" through physics experiments and seeing how they work? Is there anything that prevents a simulator from interfacing with actual base reality for these exact facets, creating an illusion of non-simulation?
Erm actually the rules of the simulation say it's not a simulation.
>>16834125>There possibly cannot be anything more fundamental than atoms
>>16834125I am suggesting that, yes
>>16833108>we don't have access to nested virtualization fucking why lmaos
>>16834200In the shorter term, much more advanced microscopy might be a good start. I'm pretty sure there's a limit to how small we can see by smashing particles together before we start creating black holes that consume us all. We need some kind of way to go much deeper without particle accelerators. Then we might get answers on whether space is discretized or not and if other dimensions exist etc which could help work it out. In the long term, there's a lot of space to explore. Maybe something in deep space will obviously be simulated but we just can't see it from earth. Either way I think we'd need really advanced tech to find out. Or maybe one day aliens will show up and will already have the answers and can just tell us
>>16834029consider that all possible actions (such as for example quark-gluon interactions, or beta decay or whatever) can be described and are contained in an n-1 dimensional amplituhedron, where n is the number of particles you are consideringconsider also that thes amplituhedra (really just clever cuts through a hilbert space) exhibit no dynamics whatsoeverthere is no notion of time, no arrow of causality, pure geometry dictates every possible state of your universe and every allowed transition
>>16833104enough of the debunking, I want to bunk
