1 edit
@sonhouse saidOr is it that the universe simply appears to our senses to be more than any algorithm can run?
https://phys.org/news/2025-10-mathematical-proof-debunks-idea-universe.html
Mathematical proof the universe cannot be a simulation because the universe is more than any algorithm can run.
I believe reality is mental-based. That is, raw, undifferentiated consciousness is the base substrate of all existence. So in that light, a "real" universe is just a mental construct, and the only question is how a "real" universe is to be defined as distinct from a "simulated" one. Both would use consciousness as its sole ingredient, and both would (I think) arise from a kind of evolutionary process to produce a "consensus reality" for its inhabitants.
If you feel yourself to be real, then real you are, no matter whether this universe is "real" or "simulated." There is no question of it, since the essence of consciousness is irreducible and cannot be manufactured. All a "simulated" universe is is just another space for a consensus reality to arise, and its base essence is consciousness just like a "real" universe.
However, I would tend to agree that mathematical algorithms are insufficient for creating a viable reality. Algorithms are discretized processes -- ones and zeros (i.e. bits) -- and consciousness, as the base ingredient of existence, has potentiality exceeding what such processes can offer. Even qubits are insufficient, I'd say. The simulated universe hypothesis is founded on the (unjustified) assumption that arrangements of atoms, or bits, or qubits, can give rise to consciousness. We have no proof of that, nor does it seem likely when one thinks seriously and introspectively about the matter.
@Soothfast saidSo the James Webb scope finding new stars some 13 billion years old is all made up just to fool us?
Or is it that the universe simply appears to our senses to be more than any algorithm can run?
I believe reality is mental-based. That is, raw, undifferentiated consciousness is the base substrate of all existence. So in that light, a "real" universe is just a mental construct, and the only question is how a "real" universe is to be defined as distinct from a "simulated" ...[text shortened]... oof of that, nor does it seem likely when one thinks seriously and introspectively about the matter.
2 edits
@sonhouse saidSeems intuitively obvious to me, at any rate, that the universe cannot be a computer simulation. This follows from the fact that no program can be run to determine whether another program can run to completion--since, if the second program cannot run to completion, then the program to test whether it can run to completion will itself never run to completion. Yet we humans can see that a certain program has an infinite loop in it and can never run to completion--that alone shows that we are not computer simulations.
https://phys.org/news/2025-10-mathematical-proof-debunks-idea-universe.html
Mathematical proof the universe cannot be a simulation because the universe is more than any algorithm can run.
But, actually, I'd have thought that Gödel's incompleteness theorem alone was enough to prove the thesis. No algorithm could prove Gödel's incompleteness theorem.
@moonbus saidFor one thing such a simulation would need to run at a trillion times the speed of light if it is to effect stuff a billion ly away without waiting 2 billion years for a feedback and reply.
Seems intuitively obvious to me, at any rate, that the universe cannot be a computer simulation. This follows from the fact that no program can be run to determine whether another program can run to completion--since, if the second program cannot run to completion, then the program to test whether it can run to completion will itself never run to completion. Yet we humans can ...[text shortened]... eorem alone was enough to prove the thesis. No algorithm could prove Gödel's incompleteness theorem.
The whole idea is preposterous. Besides that, there is some evidence our universe is not the only one, maybe an infinite number of separate universes just like outs. Good luck simulating THAT.
@sonhouse saidA Theory of Everything there will never be. It would have to be infinitely complex, and even then it would not explain why the Theory of Everything was not discovered one day earlier by someone else.
For one thing such a simulation would need to run at a trillion times the speed of light if it is to effect stuff a billion ly away without waiting 2 billion years for a feedback and reply.
The whole idea is preposterous. Besides that, there is some evidence our universe is not the only one, maybe an infinite number of separate universes just like outs. Good luck simulating THAT.
@moonbus saidWell science is just out of kindergarten, we are not even in HS yet science wise so it is a wee early to predict that kind of thing like in the 19th century they thought it impossible humans could fly, thinking we would be torn apart by the wind or some other excuse. Now next year we are going to send folks back to the moon next year, a round about this time but its fking about time, its like all the training I got at Goddard on my Apollo job was a waste of time. Nixon made sure of that, not gonna allow a democrat plan to live, he considered it a publicity stunt and so they chucked the plans for Saturn V, literally in a dumpster so we had to start over to get a rocket that powerful and maybe it is better because of 50 years of improvements to rocket tech but still, they could have had colonies on the moon by now. Sorry, I digress. Just saying new evidence is showing maybe there is a fifth force and if so leading to yet further discoveries, all the sciences are getting freaky better but the most development now is in China thanks to our felon in chief who hates competence so has destroyed half our science base, the latest the closing of our premier global weather monitoring sciences since Trump is a climate change denier and also SO good for the science of health with that buffoon RFK jr in charge, measles on the rise again when we had it mostly eradicated and the like.
A Theory of Everything there will never be. It would have to be infinitely complex, and even then it would not explain why the Theory of Everything was not discovered one day earlier by someone else.
@wildgrass saidSo we are finding hints now in the CWB there might be other universes, so how would you go about simulating say a million extra universes? And if there are a million there could be WAY more than that.
Unless the simulator is older than that.
And how would a simulation work anyway when nothing can go faster than c except for the universe expanding which even now exceeds c but how would that help a sim make decisions on say a given star not be a blue giant but instead a nice steady yellow deal like our sun when they are like a billion light years apart? Are we to therefore assume there HAS to be extra dimensions allowing for such sim decisions to go near infinite speed so it could do quick work say preventing two stars from colliding when the sim has plans for one of them to harbor life?
@sonhouse saidI think the multiverse actually makes more sense in a simulated reality. Like when you restart a video game.
So we are finding hints now in the CWB there might be other universes, so how would you go about simulating say a million extra universes? And if there are a million there could be WAY more than that.
And how would a simulation work anyway when nothing can go faster than c except for the universe expanding which even now exceeds c but how would that help a sim make decision ...[text shortened]... work say preventing two stars from colliding when the sim has plans for one of them to harbor life?
@wildgrass saidSplain that one. Are you invoking some kind of multidimentional superposition thing?
I think the multiverse actually makes more sense in a simulated reality. Like when you restart a video game.
1 edit
@wildgrass saidFor a universe with maybe trillions or quadrillions of other universes. Sure, it could happen🙂 But even if our uni is the only one how do you overcome the pesky problem of c as speed limit? So the sim sees a star is about to run into a black hole and it doesn't want that to happen, exactly how is it even going to see it in real time much less do something about it and suppose it is close by how would it gather enough kinetic energy to divert said star from said black hole when the sim wants that star to foster life or whatever? Is this sim magically free from the restraints of the speed of light? It is a GOD sim? What kind of sim could you imagine able to monitor literally trillions of stars and say select a few for further development when they are say 3 billion light years apart? That seems to me to push the bounds of reason.
Like if you and I were both playing the same video game.It would be different gameplay but all based within the same coded environment.
@sonhouse saidYou wouldn't need to code the entire universe at 1:1 scale. There's no way humanity will ever be able to travel more than, say, 20 light years from earth. Everything past that could just be a projection of the physical universe.
For a universe with maybe trillions or quadrillions of other universes. Sure, it could happen🙂 But even if our uni is the only one how do you overcome the pesky problem of c as speed limit? So the sim sees a star is about to run into a black hole and it doesn't want that to happen, exactly how is it even going to see it in real time much less do something about it and suppo ...[text shortened]... opment when they are say 3 billion light years apart? That seems to me to push the bounds of reason.
If you've seen the Truman show, he lived in a giant dome where it looked like the sun/stars were real but it was just projected on the roof. You can do that with video game coding too.