Physicists prove the Universe isn't a simulation after all
27 points by webnrrd2k 9 hours ago | 39 comments
  • _tk_ 9 hours ago |
    That’s exactly what would happen in a simulation.
    • andsoitis 9 hours ago |
      What do you mean?
      • stfp 8 hours ago |
        Let’s assume it’s simulations all the way down and we exist in plane P=n. The question is are we at n=0.

        Looks like this result says we can’t simulate our plane in a computer. But the stuff in that simulation exists in P=n+1. So maybe the conclusion is “you can’t simulate n from within n+1” which means we can’t simulate our own plane, let alone our potential parent, and doesn’t mean we don’t have one

        • downboots 7 hours ago |
          Take the room you're in and simulate it with a computer. Now, bring the computer into the room.
    • beardyw 8 hours ago |
      But the folks running the simulation don't realise they are in a simulation.
    • karmakaze 5 hours ago |
      Yup, if we're in a simulation pretty much all bets are off. Mandela Effect could merely be update patches. It could patch a proof that our world is not a simulation.
  • yawpitch 9 hours ago |
    Ok, but the simulation could easily have been written to include an adjunct professor at UBC’s much-less-well-known Okanagan campus who isn’t actually that great at Gödeling.
    • congratulator 5 hours ago |
      Bravo!
  • p1esk 9 hours ago |
    "We have demonstrated that it is impossible to describe all aspects of physical reality using a computational theory of quantum gravity," says Dr. Faizal. "Therefore, no physically complete and consistent theory of everything can be derived from computation alone. Rather, it requires a non-algorithmic understanding, which is more fundamental than the computational laws of quantum gravity and therefore more fundamental than spacetime itself."

    Seems like quantum gravity theory might be missing something, no?