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.
The problem I see here is that the “outside” that would run such a simulation would be totally foreign to us. Keep in mind that e.g. time is an inside parameter of our universe, and as causality depends on the existence of time, we can neither say what was before the big bang, nor what caused it.
Gödels incompleteness theorem could actually stem from such a simulation situation. Anyone who has ever played a simulation game knows that this does not simulate reality perfectly.
Maybe the outside universe that runs our universe does not have such an incompletion - we’ll never know, as we lack the ability to comprehend even the basics they run on if they don’t even have causality like we do.
I think is a very rational take indeed, and while it means that the simulated nature of our universe cannot be disproven (nor proven), it does mean that we cannot simulate a universe like ours.
But the simulation theory does rely on the reasoning that there is a (possibly infinite) chain of simulated universes in order to argue that it is more likely that our universe is simulated than not. But if we cannot simulate a universe like ours, it also becomes pure conjecture to suggest another universe can, and therefore the chain is broken.
In fact, the universe “above us” would need to have mathematical rules that are beyond what we know to be true. At that point, even the discussion of determinism vs nondeterminism goes out the window, because our understanding of truth would no longer apply. But calling the/a/any universe a simulation implies knowledge of determinism, otherwise it no longer fits our understanding of algorithm. So if you believe the universe is a simulation, you may as well say that you believe in spirituality (not the hand-wavy non-scientific kind, but the kind that acknowledges an understanding that is at a higher level than ours). I think it’s hard to argue against a higher-level understanding beyond ours. But calling it a simulation has implications that don’t seem to hold. So maybe calling it spirituality is actually the fairer description.
Exactly. We cannot simulate a universe with the same complexity as ours. That’s Gödel applied to our universe. But we can simulate a simplified universe where Gödel does not come into play for us. Think “Sim City” or “Civilization”. And likewise I cannot rule out that our universe is a simulation within the higher universes’ own Gödel limits.
It seems to me that it should be impossible to truly prove that the universe isnt a simulation. If you lived in a simulation, then the simulator theoretically can control everything that you experience, to include things like the activity of your own neurons and whatever else plays a role in your thinking. As such, they can, if they wish, make you believe that you have seen something that is inconsistent with a simulation, even if you have not, make you believe that something you did see is inconsistent with one even if it isnt, or cause you to believe that a certain chain of logic must rule out a simulation even though it doesnt. As such, there is a subset of hypothetical simulated worlds in which you are absolutely but falsely convinced that simulation is disproven. How can you tell the difference between one of these and a “real” world where you really have disproved simulation?
Hijacking the simulation that hard feels like it would defeat the purpose of the sim. You interested with the experiment and can never be sure you didn’t influence the results one way or another.
I’ll let the mathgicians figure it out tho. I’m dumb.
I mean, theres no way to really know what the purpose of the sim is, if youre in a sim, except for that it probably isnt one that conflicts with whatever you see. It doesnt have to be an experiment.
Mind, I dont think the universe is a sim, but it seems to me that to truly prove that it cant be the case, there have to be absolutely no scenarios where being in a sim is consistent with what you experience. And there’s probably a potential purpose that some entity might have to justify any scenario that can be constructed, especially given that the simulator need not be human and therefore might have completely alien motivations.
I agree 100%
I don’t think we’re in a sim. Even giving us the ability to think it could be one would be something to avoid. I do like the thought experiment at least.
I think William of Ockham has a thing or two to say about that, but there’s no arguing with the reasoning! 😆
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.
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
They specifically claim to refute the ‘simulations all the way down’ anthropic-flavored argument which goes as follows:
-
We can make pretty good simulations already
-
Later we’ll want to make more and more detailed
-
Therefore most folks that exist are inside simulations
-
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.)
-
If the universe is “built on a type of understanding that exists beyond the reach of any algorithm”, doesn’t that also make it beyond the reach of mathematics?
Kinda weird to use math to “prove” that math can’t work. But I’m not a PHD physicist (or a sex pest) like the authors.
Math is sort of a superset of algorithms. It can explain things algorithms sometimes can’t.
Are you saying that some mathematics cannot be calculated on silicone?
Do you have some examples?
I’m not sure anything can be figured on breast implants and dildos
Theory
If I was running a universe as a simulation, and I knew there was a mathematical proof that could prove to the simulation’s inhabitants that they were in a simulation and I did not want them to know, I would totally hard code that edge case to make the formula work the way I wanted. That’s all that’s going on here.
