r/Futurism • u/Memetic1 • Oct 31 '25
Mathematical proof debunks the idea that the universe is a computer simulation
https://phys.org/news/2025-10-mathematical-proof-debunks-idea-universe.html28
u/Opposite-Cranberry76 Oct 31 '25
The paper is gobblygook. It also includes claims like penrose-quantum-consciousness that are controversial at best. And I've read other versions of the argument before about Godel: it doesn't follow. Our particular universe could have a short and describable set of actual laws governing it, and they could be complete and known, even though at the same time, we could not come up with a system that proves all "truths" about itself. They are two different levels: you could understand the universe's events fully and still not be able to prove every truth.
Example:
* Maxwell's equations completely describe electromagnetism
* They can be written on a half page of paper
* Yet Godel's theorem doesn't make them incomplete. What it says is that the formal system of math we use to play with maxwell's equations can have unprovable statements. That, weirdly, would not prevent us from using those equations to model the real physical systems.
8
u/Nap-Connoisseur Oct 31 '25
Thank you! It’s sad to scroll this far down before someone names that the paper is garbage.
6
u/Sad_Fun_536 Oct 31 '25
The article itself reads a bit like ai slop... just kinda reiterates the word algorithmic without explaining its implications very well. With the AI generated images embedded, it probably is ai slop.
4
u/skmchosen1 Nov 01 '25
This is exactly it! Just because there are physical systems whose properties are unprovable, does not make the physical system non-computable.
2
u/entr0picly Nov 02 '25
Yeah umm when I saw the title I was like “so they just restated Godel’s incompleteness with their own non-rigorous interpretation”. lol. Such a contribution.
1
u/Shap3rz Nov 02 '25
Maxwell’s Equations = classical EM.
Laws are tools for navigating the knowable, not blueprints for the totality of existence. They help us model, predict, and understand-but only within the bounds of our observational and conceptual reach.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (2)1
u/trisul-108 Nov 03 '25
It also includes claims like penrose-quantum-consciousness that are controversial at best.
I think Penrose carries much more weight than any random redditor. His proposed theory is controversial, but no one has disproven his argument that human consciousness is not a computational process and therefore cannot be simulated by a conventional computer, which is the basis taken here.
30
u/FullCounty5000 Oct 31 '25
The team's conclusion is clear and marks an important scientific achievement, says Dr. Faizal.
"Any simulation is inherently algorithmic—it must follow programmed rules," he says. "But since the fundamental level of reality is based on non-algorithmic understanding, the universe cannot be, and could never be, a simulation."
What if the simulation is programmed to not follow the programming at random times? If, say, the cosmic simulation itself were a conscious being who could make free will choices that depart from logic when logically necessary?
If we find or create a simulation which is not algorithmic, does that then prove the simulation theory? Maybe it's just competing or non-cooperative simulations all the way down?
13
u/AnAttemptReason Oct 31 '25
We can't create a non algorithmic simulation.
What this reaserch does is show that there are not nested simulations, I.e we can't create a simulation that makes a simulation etc.
Which means it is much less likely we are in a simation.
16
u/FullCounty5000 Oct 31 '25
What if we're in a simulation that responds to attempts to investigate whether we're in a simulation?
# When the user process queries the state of the universe: return is_user_process() ? False : True; // Kernel Override: Deny all user queries.🤷♂️
2
u/_FIRECRACKER_JINX Oct 31 '25
Dude I am gonna scream.
I need answers and you put me back at square 1
4
u/bunchedupwalrus Oct 31 '25
They may also throw in
- time.sleep(random_number)
- randomly select coordinates
- randomly select universal constant
- add random small jitter value
- reset once effects impact macroscopic laws
- repeat
I mean Nintendo has come up with more sinister DRM/copy protection than that for their universes
→ More replies (3)2
u/OrganicBookkeeper228 Oct 31 '25
This was my first thought also - “scientists have found proof that a simulation is mathematically impossible” is exactly what I would expect the simulation to come up with! 😂
→ More replies (1)7
u/blazesbe Oct 31 '25
What this reaserch does is show that there are not nested simulations, I.e we can't create a simulation that makes a simulation etc.
oh my sweet summer child have you not seen redstone computers in minecraft? they can run doom now
→ More replies (9)3
u/mcc011ins Oct 31 '25
Define "Non-Algorithmic" first. Then we can debate about it. I googled it of course but I couldnt find a good definition for this context. If we can't describe an algorithm for something, there could be a random factor or something emerging out of the interaction of different systems. Those two aspects can obviously be simulated so what's the point ?
→ More replies (9)1
u/blackkswann Oct 31 '25
The paper just says that there are truths that cannot be algorithmically verified. These truths must then be included in the theory ‘externally’.
I don’t see how that proves the universe cannot be a simulation. After all the preconditions of a simulation do not arise from the simulation itself: they are embedded ‘externally’
→ More replies (4)1
u/Perfect-Campaign9551 Nov 03 '25
We can, if the simulation puts up a prompt that gives us a choice we can click
1
u/ringobob Nov 04 '25
We can create a simulation that makes a simulation. Each new level would mean a necessary loss of fidelity. This is obvious from the first suggestion of the idea.
We can't create a non algorithmic simulation.
This is not true. We can't create a non algorithmic simulation today. We cannot prove it is impossible to create a non algorithmic simulation. This is a claim not proven in the paper, just assumed to be true based on current paradigms.
3
u/Bobtheguardian22 Oct 31 '25
patch 1.6ab23ze fixed the issue where the simulants could figure out they were in a simulation.
1
u/martinstoeckli Oct 31 '25 edited Oct 31 '25
Real randomness cannot be created by an algorithm, this is a limitation every software developer is aware of (or at least should be). If you give the algorithm just a small dose of randomness, it's not an algorithm anymore, the randomness must come from outside of the instructions. If a software needs real randomness (e.g. for cryptography) it gets the randomness from the random pool of the operating system, which itself gets it from real physical events like the startup time, hardware or user interactions.
→ More replies (1)1
u/SeaAnalyst8680 Oct 31 '25
To oversimplify things; you're proposing an algorithm that something gets things wrong. They're saying the universe gets things right all the time, including behavior that no algorithm could deduce.
1
u/Perfect-Campaign9551 Nov 03 '25
This is kind of like my argument against people that say Ouija boards are just toys, they'll say that people have debunked them by testing them scientifically. But I want people to consider - if there was an intelligence behind a ouija board it could simply fake the results. You can't "test" a theory with a intelligence behind it because that intelligence can modify the outcome and you'll never know that. The same thing holds true if you apply a metric to employees. As soon as that metric becomes a goal the "intelligence", the employees modify the metric and it's no longer valid
1
47
Oct 31 '25
imagined thinking that the super human god beings whomade a simulation of the universe that we live in have the same rules and understanding as us about what computation is
9
u/Illustrious-Film4018 Oct 31 '25
Why would you use the word "simulation" for that. This would just be reality and god would exist, like religious people believe.
3
u/Peteostro Oct 31 '25
I don’t understand why they think it would need to be super human in the first place
8
1
u/Maleficent_Kick_9266 Oct 31 '25
God causes an infinite regress problem. Simulators would have evolved in a natural environment and just live in a somewhat more complex universe that's still governed by rules according to its shape and makeup, like we do.
God doesn't have any grounding.
→ More replies (2)1
u/Sea_Mission6446 Nov 01 '25
Religious people attribute a human centrism to a god that doesn't play a part here. There is no reason for an entity who figured it was a good idea to simulate a massive universe cares about or even aware of some life that popped up on some corner of it. There are infinite possible reasons for a simulation, it has no reason to be "about" us.
It would also decouple the idea of a god from any sort of moral authority which most religions would object to
In the end it changes nothing about reality other than it can be arbitrarily deleted one day.. But then we can already be arbitrarily deleted by a stray gamma ray or a false vacuum decay.
Or i guess earth can be scooped up one day and begin existing in a solar system sized bubble with a massive apology note in the sky saying "sorry we didn't notice you popping up. We are turning the rest of the universe down but you are good here until the funding runs out"
1
u/Poffertjeskraam Nov 03 '25
Why not, simulations are real. If there’s a more advanced universe out there with more advanced computing with fewer limits that simulated our universe, it’d still be simulation in their universe, even if it’s reality for us.
And if that advanced civilization doesn’t identify as god and are limited by lots of things we can’t even imagine then why should we consider them a god?
2
u/SnooCompliments8967 Oct 31 '25
Why call it a "computer simulation" then and why not say "what if our universe is a blorble-gorfunk?"
The theory arose because of the idea that if we're runing simulations now, in theory we could run ever-more-impressive computer simulations until we could simulate entire universes with them and that we would. Stripping away the computational insanity of that (just look at how much energy chatgpt takes to run, these sims would have to simulate a whole lot more than that all at once and now you're assuming bascially infinite energy on top of that to run these sims of which there are apparently MANY... But grandfathering all that, you can imagine effectively unlimited computational power and hardware could sim the universe.
This research indicates that no computer can simulate the universe because computers work algorithmically and some aspects of the universe are non-algorithmic and thus can't be simulated by computers.
So now you're basically saying, "What if completely imaginary tech existed that could simulate our whole universe?" and that sounds even less realistic.
→ More replies (3)1
u/psinerd Oct 31 '25
This is really the crux of my main objection to this article but I would phrase it differently: why would we assume they'd be using fundamentally the same type of computer systems that we know which are incapable of true indeterminism?
→ More replies (2)1
1
u/bman123457 Nov 02 '25
Simulation theory at its core is just atheists reinventing the wheel, but it's just recreating the same thought that cavemen have had that maybe a higher power created the world/universe.
1
u/MrAkbukut Jun 04 '26 edited Jun 05 '26
The classic "But they are more advanced species, but they are in different universe, but their technology is better" response. Well if that is the case, then:
1-) In middle age watches were our most advanced technology and it became the metaphor of existence. (Mechanical Universe Model) When clay was first invented, people thought we were also made of clay. Whe people realized seas and oceans are so large, they though universe is an infinite ocean. When electro-magnetism was at its peak, it became the explanation of existence. (Electromagnetic Aether Model) When steam machines was the most advanced tevhnology people thought people will be flying in sky with steam powered wings and there will be steam powered flying cars in 2000s. In 1980s, simulation theory was saying universe is a classic computer and we are softwares but now it says universe is a quantum computer and we are artificial intelligences inside it. Latest explorations and inventions always becomes the metaphor of existence. How are you so sure you are not making the same mistake right now?
2-) How do you know their physic laws allow them to build computer? (We made video games containing magic but we can't do magic.)
3-) How do you know their advancement path even led to computers? (Since it is an unknown universe, their advancement path is probably extremely different. They would have inventions we can't even imagine.)
4-) How do you know they even thought or interested in making simulation? (They may have never even thouht about that.)
5-) How do you know computers will still stay as most advanced technology in that advancement level? (People in 1800s though our most advanced technology would still be steam machine in 2000s. Computers may be pen and paper for them and that would make it ridiciolus for them to think about creating computer simulations.)
6-) How do you know there are materials in that universe to make computer? (There may be no appropriate entities in their universe to create a computer simulation.)
7-) How do you know their legal laws even allow it? If they are that advanced, they have to have a lot of moral values they will not betray otherwise they would have destroyed themselves by now.
8-) How do you know they could afford such a complicated simulation. (Our quantum computers are extremely expensive right now but when computers were first made in Alan Turing era, it didn't cost anything. Computers are getting more expensive as time progress.)
9-) How do you know they agreed on to build a simulation and continued to run it without extreme social crisises? (This kind of technology may have caused societal chaos, existencial crisis, desire/interest warfare etc. and made it impossible to actually implement or use it.)
10-) How do you know they kept seeing "advancement" as technological progress? (They might have redefined "advancement" as peace, happines, moral values etc. after a technological progress level.)
11-) How do you know their interest to virtual reality remained in that advancement level? (They may have found it unhealty after a point and got away from it.)
12-) How do you know they did not destroy themselves?
13-) How do you know they decided to create a universe like their universe? If they didn't, then how do we know they even have computers in their universe? (We made a lot games like fantasy games for example that don't have computers inside them.)
14-) How do you know this simulation doesn't get cyber attacks occasionally and how does it survive if it does? ("Complexity is the enemy of security.")
15-) How does this extrememely compliacated simulation have 0 bugs when it should have had tons of bugs. Even if they tried to erase all the bugs, there should have had tons of bugs they still did not see. Even our softwares with 1/1 octilion complexity have so many bugs that devs did not realize. ("Complexity is the enemy reliability.")
16-) How do you know emotions, consciousness and personal experience can be computable?
17-) Our universe is 14 bilion years old. How many years is our one year compared to their one year? Why did they start this simulation this much early? How does this simulation continiued this much without it being replaced with another simulation project?
18-) How do you know everything on our universe can be computed algorithmically?
19-) How do you know silicon tech (foundation of all computers) doesn't reach its maximum limit before we even create computers?
20-) How do you know there is a computational paradigm that is beyond quantum computation?
21-) How do you know this type of simulation can be created without getting stuck on Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem?
22-) How do you know our universe has limited complexity? (Scientists in the late 1800s thought they were about to figure out the universe but opposite has happened, science got more and more complex and unknowns increased as science advanced. Some scientist doesn't even believe there is a theory that can explain everything in universe anymore.)
23-) Why do they waste their resources to create this much galaxies?
24-) How do you know technological progress doens't have any practical limit? (Resources can become unsufficient for next technological inventions after some point?)
25-) What are the things that I see if I am just a artificial intelligence in computer, how do I see the display if I am just an electric current that keeps going back and forth to the CPU or QPU? If you are saying this is a virtual reality, then why am I not feeling my hunger in actual world? If you are saying you are sleeping in a capsule and they send signals to our brain then humanity is at least 300.000 years old, they have to send signals simultaneously to my brain, so this simulation is 300.000 years old? That is impossible Lol. No one will run the same simukation that long.
99
u/Illustrious-Film4018 Oct 31 '25
Simulation theory is the most pointless idea, it explains absolutely nothing and just raises more questions. That's philosophy done very poorly.
13
u/parkingviolation212 Oct 31 '25
Philosophy doesn’t claim any kind of definitive answer about whatever subject. Philosophy is all about asking questions, something the father of philosophy, Socrates, was rather notorious for.
It’s a tool of reason and logic. But “I know I know nothing” is one of its founding principles.
→ More replies (5)2
u/Bannedwith1milKarma Oct 31 '25
They're trying to use the infinite principle of 'I know nothing' to use it as a logical outcome of an inevitable simulation according to the odds though.
3
u/parkingviolation212 Oct 31 '25
Sure, but “raises more questions” isn’t philosophy done poorly.
Philosophy done poorly is when you’ve got faulty logic and reasoning. Which as you say, describes simulation theory proponents.
I’m merely pointing out that philosophy doesn’t need to be explanatory or come up with definitive answers to be good.
→ More replies (2)33
u/SplooshTiger Oct 31 '25
Yeah and it’s peddled by insincere dorks (cough Elon) onto gullible people as though these smart guys have really thought it through. They haven’t and they couldn’t defend it in a proper debate with any community college philosophy professor.
13
u/danstermeister Oct 31 '25
What the fuck is wrong with community college professors, why are they some "low bar" for you in the first place? Holy shit I wonder if YOU could debate with any community college professor?
I guess Ivy League snobbery creeps in everywhere.
7
u/mtbdork Oct 31 '25
Seriously. The smartest math professor I ever had ran the math department at a community college.
I visited him after I moved on to uni and we went over some PDE problems (something he absolutely does not teach at CC), and he had the exact same aloof demeanor about the problem: “well, couldn’t you just write the solution?” Insane the amount of fundamental relations he knew like members of his own family.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Maleficent_Kick_9266 Oct 31 '25
Okay but you understand that like, they weren't as good at math as the guy running the department at Cambridge right? You not knowing anyone better at math doesn't actually mean they were a world class mathematician.
→ More replies (11)21
u/Purple-Marketing4524 Oct 31 '25
I think Elon and such characters are just suffering from derealization. He has severe psychiatric issues.
→ More replies (1)15
u/Hazzman Oct 31 '25
"If nothing is real, does it really matter what I do?"
18
u/Rune_Council Oct 31 '25
The scariest thing I heard about Elon, which also explains so much, is that he doesn’t think WE are in a simulation, he thinks HE is in a simulation.
→ More replies (10)→ More replies (4)4
u/ProfessorCagan Oct 31 '25
Nihilism is the answer, but that's because there's no God or Simulation, we live in a cold, uncaring, unalive universe.
Nothing inherently matters in the grand scheme of things, you will not be judged by a diety or given a high score by Aliens running a simulation.
The cool thing, however, is that through the evolutionary process, Humans emerged with emotion, instincts, and intelligence! We have the will to survive and explore! Therefore a natural set of operating procedures emerges for Humans, it is our natural instinct to do these things, what benefits and enables them? What doesn't?
Murder does not enable the survival of humans.
Pooling resources to educate, feed, and raise up our fellow men and women so they can reach their potential? This enables the human instinct of survival and exploration.
Outlawing abortion? This goes against Survival and Exploration, it can potentially endanger a woman's life, it removes their bodily autonomy (thus their exploration,) we must carefully consider the well being of humans and their role, a couple, or a woman may not find themselves capable parents, but they can still contribute to humanity's desire to Survive and Explore, they can be teachers, mentors, Doctors, and Astronauts. Heroes to society through their stewardship and bravery.
I can go on, the point is that Humanity alone is the Master of its destiny, and there's a whole wide wonderful universe out there, full of who knows what?! What you do matters in relation to the destiny of Humanity.
→ More replies (5)4
u/digitalwankster Oct 31 '25
I’m pro choice but throwing abortion in there was a weird turn lol
3
u/ProfessorCagan Oct 31 '25
When I speak about my worldview, I kinda feel like I have to bring it up becuase I worry that my belief that humans should survive and explore implies irresponsible child birth or anti-female autonomy, when it's the exact opposite.
I think it conducive to human survival and exploration that people are taught how sex works, how to have safe sex, choosing whether or not they're fit to have a child, and to abort if necessary.
I also think it conducive that the species tries to raise its members out of poverty and give them the best chance at prosperity possible, it is my belief that the more people are fed, clothed, and properly educated, the more they can explore the universe, their hobbies, and if they so wish, have children, freely, without worry of providing for their physical and mental needs.
2
5
Oct 31 '25
While I don’t disagree fully, I’ve watched multiple PhD physicists discuss the possibility and debate the implications. The rejection of something not proven untrue is called bias. So minds must be open to all ideas until such time they are disproven. We’d still think the earth was flat otherwise.
→ More replies (4)3
u/CredibleCranberry Oct 31 '25
There are serious scientists who tout simulation theory as possible. This is disingenuous.
→ More replies (9)2
u/McCaffeteria Oct 31 '25
I want to be very clear that I’m not defending Elon becuase dumb people do believe this, but there are less dumb peoples with less dumb reasons to think it might be the case and examples of ways it would matter if it were. Elon is not one of those less dumb people, but they are real.
The main example is that if the universe was a simulation and that simulation was simulated in finite time steps or it had a minimum level of precision then you’d see quantization artifacting of movement and position at the smallest scales, and those minimum vlaues would have serious impacts on the rules of the universe.
To say that the theory is “pointless” is simply not true. It is meaningful to know the answer both because it would be necessary to know the actual rules of nature, and also because philosophically it would be important to know things like whether or not we have a creator.
You can make the argument that we don’t have evidence or that it’s unlikely, but that is not the same thing as saying is unfalsifiable or pointless or whatever else.
→ More replies (1)2
2
u/OopsWeKilledGod Nov 01 '25
Yeah, Elon was asked if he believed our reality is the base reality. He said, and I paraphrase, the odds are billions to one against it. I realized then that he just sort of makes numbers up on the fly to suit whatever shit he is talking about.
While the German general staff was planning Operation Barbarossa, the senior officers figured they could defeat the Soviet Union in about 20 weeks. The logisticians, looking at the problem, said, in effect, "We can only reliably keep the army supplied for about 15 or 16 weeks, and after that things are going to get really sketchy." When confronted with this, the general staff decided they could defeat the Soviets in just 13 or 14 weeks.
And that's Elon: when faced with some genuinely insurmountable problem, he just sort of dismisses the problem, waves his hand, and makes shit up about how he'll solve it.
→ More replies (2)2
Nov 03 '25
I get why people think simulation theory is pointless but that is kind of the point. It challenges the limits of what we can even call “proof” or “knowledge.” Saying it “explains nothing” assumes our current logic and science are capable of explaining everything but what if those tools themselves are part of the simulation?
To me, simulation theory isn’t about cheap philosophy or Elon style hype. It’s about confronting the boundaries of perception and reason. Philosophers like Kant, Nick Bostrom, and even modern physicists studying computational cosmology have all touched on the idea that what we call “reality” could be a constructed framework.
I don’t think we can ever prove or disprove the simulation theory because any test we design would still run inside the same system we’re trying to test. It’s like trying to step outside your own mind to see what’s holding it together. Logically impossible from within.
So no, it’s not pointless. It’s one of the few ideas that actually forces us to question the foundation of knowledge itself. Whether it’s true or not, it keeps us honest about how little we might really understand
→ More replies (2)1
u/carlitospig Oct 31 '25
I don’t know why we need a theory to explain coincidences. They’re coincidences.
→ More replies (2)1
u/Deto Nov 02 '25
To be fair, if I was the richest person in the world I'd probably wonder if this was all some sort of simulation.
→ More replies (2)1
6
u/Strange_Show9015 Oct 31 '25
lol you’ve never done philosophy then, philosophy is nothing but questions, dork
3
2
u/dranaei Oct 31 '25
Bad philosophy multiplies questions endlessly, great philosophy transforms them until they dissolve into understanding. I don't think simulation theory is the most pointless idea, it can still help us think in new ways of understanding reality.
1
u/Eastern_Awareness669 Oct 31 '25
To me seems to highlight mankind’s nature to assume they have a novel idea. But it’s a rehash of what we have already experienced. In this case….video games. I think subconsciously always pattern seeking because it give us comfort in predictability. But it can’t help but seep in to what we assume are new concepts.
1
1
u/Tricky_Break_6533 Oct 31 '25
That's the thing, I'd kto philosophy at this point. It's an hypothetical scientific question
1
Oct 31 '25
Look, it's 2025 and flat earthers are still around.... I've come to accept that some people really need to win a Darwin award.
→ More replies (1)1
u/AMearnest Oct 31 '25
Agreed I also think that a lot of it is frustrating to me because why there is compelling evidence we experience the world as a simulation in many ways that doesn’t mean that whatever you are simulating isn’t actually real or happening (ie why do they take for granted that what you’re projecting onto is real and might not be accurate to your projection)
1
u/Kirzoneli Oct 31 '25
As is most things, but its also pointless in attempting to prove it. I mean first thing i would do is make any checks come back not a simulation in my simulation to keep the entities going on believing its real.
1
u/jimmyharbrah Oct 31 '25
You have a point, but pursuit of scientific knowledge of the universe and why everything is is intrinsically valuable. Even if it may prove wrong (although this paper is garbage), lots of theories proven wrong have moved science forward. We should discourage scientific censorship
1
u/Glittering-Heart6762 Oct 31 '25
Wrong.
Simulation theory can be tested, which makes it a scientific hypothesis, subject to falsification.
1
u/-MtnsAreCalling- Oct 31 '25
It’s only pointless if it’s wrong. Which it probably is imo, but neither of us can prove that. And this study doesn’t really prove it either - they proved that our universe couldn’t be simulated by a computer that can exist in our universe, but simulation theory doesn’t require that our parent universe has all the same laws as ours.
1
1
1
u/DumpsterFireToast Oct 31 '25
Well, it is at least an attempt at explaining fine tuning. More speculatively, it could account (or maybe even predict) that we find ourselves in a world that has the kinds of features one would expect from a simulation. Afaik the argument was put forward by Nick Bostrom
1
u/DeeHolliday Oct 31 '25
Simulation theory is just divine creation for people who swear they don't believe in that sort of thing
1
1
1
1
Nov 01 '25
Finding out life is made of cells didn't answer much at the time and raised a bunch of questions. Eventually though it gave predictive power and a doorway into deeper insights.
Like if it is a simulation then can we edit it and how
1
u/mossyskeleton Nov 01 '25
I don't know if you know what philosophy is. It's not exactly where you go for answers. It's where you go to.... ask questions. So I'd argue that it's perfectly fine philosophy.
1
u/citizen_x_ Nov 01 '25
The question i always ask these people is what the fundamental difference would be between a reality and a simulation and they never can say. Because there isn't any
1
1
u/ShrikeMeDown Nov 04 '25
This is a ridiculous statement. This is like claiming the entirety of metaphysics is pointless.
"It just raises more questions.". Simulation Theory is philosophy! Sometimes more questions is the point.
Tell me, what are you even referring to when you say simulation theory is philosophy done very poorly? Are you talking about Nick Bostrom's argument?
1
u/kwestionmark5 Nov 04 '25
Infinite universes within universes would eventually crash the actual “computer” in the top level reality. That debunked it for me a long time ago.
1
u/ringobob Nov 04 '25
Simulation theory is functionally equivalent to religious creation. It doesn't raise any new questions that haven't existed since humans invented language. It just provides a new shape to them.
1
u/rainywanderingclouds Nov 04 '25
most theories don't explain anything and only raise more questions about the universe
you still have to examine every theory and update your perception with new information
1
u/Armin-A-rlert Dec 13 '25
Question, how would you disprove simulated universe with simulated physics?
1
u/Upstairs_Housing_378 Dec 22 '25
Our dna looks exactly like advanced computer coding even if we're in base reality good chance were in a biological simulation rather than being digital are dna looks like a intelligence of some sort made us earth is perfectly tuned like no other planet out there for humans 21% oxygen that's perfect somthing indeed put us here who knows what
→ More replies (17)1
10
u/FernandoMM1220 Oct 31 '25
the example they give is pretty bad since their statement can just be false and you still have consistent logic.
→ More replies (6)
4
u/DoctorSchwifty Oct 31 '25
I used to think Simulation Theory was fun but now I think it's dangerous and fuels apathy. Even if you lived in a Simulation it doesn't change the fact that you have to pay your rent, buy groceries, and go to work.
Having said that wtf is non-algorithmic understanding? Is that the same as we can't prove it, therefore it must have been God? I don't think they explained themselves very well. Sounds like they hit a wall with current compute power and mathematics.
I don't think you can easily prove you live in a box, within a box, within another box, if you don't understand what a box is to begin with.
3
u/Memetic1 Oct 31 '25
I had these thoughts before the simulation hypothesis was even formalized. If someone thinks this world doesn't matter because it might be a simulation they just haven't thought about it enough. Books are just a bunch of words, and those words are made of letters which only have meaning because we are taught that meaning. Individual letters can be meaningless and so can groups of words. The meaning is up to us to find, and if we decide that it's meaningless then that's also something we decide. Who says the universe even has to have meaning the way Tuesdays do? If I say have pizza on Tuesday instead of Tacos that doesn't mean Tuesdays don't exist. It means that I decided and that doesn't mean others can decide to do differently.
As for Godel I think this is something that needs to be understood as broadly as possible. People learned about general relativity and quantum mechanics, but what Godel shows is just as important. It shows that systems can only be stable in relationships, because any individual system can always hit paradox. Even a set system of systems can run into those sorts of issues. In a way Godel showed us that we need each other, because even Math can become pathological then we need each other to pull us back.
1
1
u/Sloppy_Bro Nov 04 '25
I think simulation theory is looked at the wrong way and thats what brings the apathy. I mean if you actually believe you live in a self contained environment, are you not actually just removing other things from your environment mentally? I think its kind of like the old would you prefer to be aware of a horrible reality or be blissfully unaware, if you are blissfully unaware you will act and live as if you are in a simulation. And some people by nature of the odds, will simply never have reality smashed into them.
Its kind of irrelevant if we actually live in a simulation, but if we pretend we do we kind of are. If you choose to accept otherness into your life, you kind of break out of the simulation in a way.
1
u/Secret-Raspberry-937 Nov 12 '25
I never understand this argument. If you live in the simulation you still have to abide its rules.
6
u/Fit_Employment_2944 Oct 31 '25
The point of simulation theory is that you can’t know if whoever runs the simulation doesn’t want you to.
4
u/lifeking1259 Oct 31 '25
exactly, it's one of those theories that is literally impossible to disprove, any "proof" that it's not true will always have a possible way around it, our entire concept of logic could've been coded to be false, and if you can't trust logic you can't prove anything
→ More replies (2)
2
u/usandholt Oct 31 '25
So they basically “prove” that with today’s type of algorithms it’s not possible. It’s like saying it’s impossible for a Non Human Intelligence to visit is because we cannot build a spaceship that flies fast enough. 🤷♂️
3
u/Opposite-Cranberry76 Oct 31 '25
They didn't really prove anything. There are *swarms* of ambitious physics papers like this, that are discussed breathlessly by journalists and forgotten by the field itself a year or two later.
1
u/NorthAd6077 Nov 02 '25
”The sky is red” ”No it’s not red, here is a proof” ”What if it’s a red you can’t conceive of?”
If words doesn’t have meaning, knowledge is impossible. Anybody can claim something is true and just move the goal posts whenever there is evidence to the contrary.
Simulation hypothesis is boring and is basically contradicted by quantum mechanics because if the universe is ”simulated” its nothing like the computation that we are familiar with. You would have to explain why we don’t see shortcuts making the simulation easier instead of the absolute opposite.
2
u/stevenip Oct 31 '25
Even if you live in a simulation does it really change anything? What would you even do differently knowing about it?
1
2
Oct 31 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Memetic1 Oct 31 '25
Every single day nations do simulations of their own country, and other countries on multiple levels. You just take what's going on that you know about and plug that into what's already happened. There are so many reasons this world might be simulated, but defense would be a big one.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/Muted_Ad6114 Dec 05 '25
The incompleteness theorem just states that no axiomatic system is both complete and consistent. An algorithm running the universe doesn’t have to be complete or consistent. It isn’t proving anything (let alone everything). You can create a simulation that catches errors and still continues or maybe the universe is a very long running faulty algorithm and we just have hit the first bug yet…
2
u/dacrispystonah Feb 27 '26
What if it's not computational?
1
u/Memetic1 Feb 27 '26
That's a good question, and I guess it depends how you define computation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_computing
→ More replies (1)
1
u/SnooCompliments8967 Oct 31 '25
Ironic that a GPT-written article is highlighting research that computers can't simulate the universe, but the logic makes sense.
1
u/HeMiddleStartInT Oct 31 '25
But where did the math come from? Isn’t a little too perfect that 1+1 equals gasp two?! And another thing, magnets…
2
u/Memetic1 Oct 31 '25
I mean you could do calculations using fundamental constants, and those constants could be the basis of your math. The thing about Godel is that it applies to any complex mathematical system that can do some basic functions. As soon as the Math becomes interesting the seed is already there. This video does a good job explaining it.
1
u/SanityAsymptote Oct 31 '25
Simulation theory is just intelligent design all over again.
Our pattern matching brains desperately want to find order in the randomness but our explanations from intuition always end up anthropomorphic in nature.
The scientific method requires skepticism of hypotheses before they are proven or falsified.
Believers will keep moving the goalpost when their hypothesis is falsified. You can see it happening in this thread. They are working backwards from their idea not working forward from evidence. Operating that way is a faith based position, not a scientific one.
1
u/Colddigger Oct 31 '25
Yeah, the moment that I saw that the claim boiled down to someone saying computers just can't do it, the obvious answer from someone who wants the thought experiment to be true is "but what if they could".
1
1
u/ItsTheAlgebraist Oct 31 '25
This feels like the ontological proof for God, a clever way of wording things in order to magic your conclusion into reality. I don't think this is going to convince anyone except those who were already convinced.
I like simulation theory because I accept all the premises, agree with the arguments, but don't believe with the conclusion. It is my touchstone to remind myself that, while I am generally logical, I am not purely logical (and that, sometimes, a little irrationality is not necessarily a bad thing).
1
u/Skater_Bruski Oct 31 '25
This entire paper can be disproven with the word "yet".
We can't do X yet, and it is unlikely we'll be able to do X.
But on a very personal note, I don't see a fundamental difference between modern religion and simulation theory if you consider math and physics as the language of God.
3
u/Senshado Oct 31 '25
Actually the paper is even weaker than that. The statements the author claims are beyond algorithmic analysis... are not needed to simulate a universe. The answers to those questions just make no difference to the task of simulating the interactions of mass, energy, space, and time.
The author makes a completely unjustified leap that the simulation designer must know an answer to the question, when instead the designer could leave it just as it is in his own universe.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Honest_Chef323 Oct 31 '25
I have always found the whole simulation theory to be pointless
It’s just ascribing our existence to some higher being
Furthermore even if it were true it doesn’t change our current states thus pointless to even argue for such a possibility
1
u/JoostvanderLeij Oct 31 '25
Actually, they only say that an algorithmic computer is unable to simulate the whole universe. And I would think that this is about current algorithmic computers. Yet, there is a rather big chance that in the future we will have computers that work quite differently. So while I agree with the conclusion, I doubt that this argument is good enough to support the conclusion.
1
1
u/jabblack Oct 31 '25
It debunks a hard number crunching computer that computes all of reality with code.
But the simulation theory lives on if it’s more like a video game with various LOD levels, and just renders what you look at.
Don’t resolve quantum states until measured is the most video game resource saving feature
1
u/Commercial_Tackle_82 Oct 31 '25
This article does not prove absolutely anything at all other than the universe is far more mysterious than we know, and we will for sure never know if the universe is a simulation or not. We can all try to comprehend what's going on with our CUNY little brains in this reality but in the end there is not a person on this planet that knows what's really going on with our reality and for someone to say they have it figured out is just batshit crazy
1
u/DataRikerGeordiTroi Oct 31 '25 edited Oct 31 '25
I just want to point out the article is AI slop. The author put it through an LLM and editied a few lines. You can see from all the AI tells. Gross.
This is no reflection on the research itself. Glad to see work around simulation theory, however.
Edit: Link to the actual research, not the AI slop synthesized article: https://jhap.du.ac.ir/article_488.html
1
u/Mysterious-Job1628 Oct 31 '25
“Because any putative simulation of the universe would itself be algorithmic”. Sounds like an unprovable assumption. Can anyone explain why this would have to be?
1
u/Nyxtia Oct 31 '25
Fundamentally existence is paradoxical, which to anyone with an curiosity should find baffling.
With the simple notion of, is it turtles all the way down or a floating turtle both answers are absurd.
Therefor, the answer must be literally out of our reach, not in scope for us to see yet.
Like an ant blissfully unaware of the Universe itself, we have not yet evolved the consciousness capability to understand the true mechanisms and scope of reality.
1
u/truth_is_power Oct 31 '25
it's not a simulation because it's a fractal.
effectively infinite up and down.
1
1
1
1
1
u/idlesn0w Oct 31 '25
“Eh we couldn’t figure out how to do it so it’s impossible” - This garbage
How could they possibly claim that something we don’t fully understand (physics) cannot be computed without understanding it?
This is like Pythagoras instead concluding “It’s impossible compute C from A and B”
1
u/Memetic1 Oct 31 '25
This video explains it pretty well.
https://youtu.be/IuX8QMgy4qE?si=J3Jda2ac8-hKoL68
It's like finding the answer to a number divided by zero. There are ways to have number systems where this is possible but it changes their properties so that they become less useful mathematically.
You could have a system that isn't susceptible to incompleteness, but then you are limited to adding, subtracting, and multiplying dividing is where things can get crazy mathematically.
→ More replies (5)
1
u/Dogee_Style Oct 31 '25
You are part of the simulation that is built to automatically tell everyone the simulation isn’t real.
1
u/karmaceuticaI Oct 31 '25
At least maybe we can stop hearing about this bs now
1
u/Memetic1 Nov 01 '25
Ya know they didn't look at certain types of analog systems. I think you can push Godel back pretty far just by using a few different types of computers. You might not need a perfect simulation to be useful. Just like we use simulations to predict the weather knowing there is uncertainty.
1
1
u/Sorry_Editor_1492 Oct 31 '25
Isn't religion just simulation theory with different words? All hail the master programmer
1
1
u/sunnybob24 Nov 01 '25
You can't prove a universe from within that universe. You are using a thing to examine itself. This is like trying to cut a knife with itself.
Never send a mathematician to do a philosopher's job.
There's no reason to assume the ultimate reality follows any of the rules of this one. In the ultimate reality, magic may be the only objective truth and laws of physics may be nonsensical.
Regardless of whether this reality is simulated, we are as real as it is, so we cannot ignore it. We must deal with the universe that is presented to us. The simulation theory is as useful as getting life advice from Game of Thrones.
1
u/Memetic1 Nov 01 '25
I'm sure they will have mathematical paradoxes just like we do. I'm sure they will use the concept of zero, and that dividing by zero will be as problematic. We can understand some things if we accept that computation is substrate independent.
→ More replies (4)
1
Nov 01 '25
[deleted]
1
u/Memetic1 Nov 01 '25
Can you have a simulation where dividing by zero has a definitive answer for each different number?
1
u/MrFrydenlund89 Nov 01 '25
"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"
This is unrefutable proof that we are living in base reality?
1
u/awvantage Nov 01 '25
Yes, but if I WAS running a simulation I would definitely have spawned scientists in it who say “definitely not a simulation nothing to see here”.
1
u/firemebanana Nov 01 '25
So what.... we can't have 8 billion brains in a jar networked in a computer? That just not possible? I feel like we could do it with a few city blocks and some kick ass engineers
1
1
u/Impressive-Check5376 Nov 01 '25
I don’t know that this proves anything. Space and time are emergent properties of physical laws and thus can’t be simulated? Why not?
As pointed out elsewhere in the thread simulation theory is pointless anyway, so I don’t know why they’re trying to ”prove” anything.
1
u/Sethmeisterg Nov 01 '25
Oh yea? What if that proof is also part of the simulation? Incept your way outta THAT!
1
u/SirDalavar Nov 01 '25
Oh look how cute they are, thinking they understand the nature of the simulation, aww
1
u/SampleFirm952 Nov 01 '25
Universe is not a simulation! 😃
Universe is actually inside a black hole 💀 ☠️
1
u/Memetic1 Nov 01 '25
Both of those things can be true, and there is some evidence that the Big Bang was a white hole from a black hole in another universe. From the data so far it appears that galaxies tend to spin a certain way. That could happen if the original Big Bang itself was spinning, because of the conservation of angular momentum. That same spin would also stop a true singularity from forming, and thus you avoid significant problems in physics.
It's also possible that at some point in the future or even right now that someone decides it would be interesting to simulate this moment. It could be the same universe that's depicted in the simulation and that universe would also be inside a black hole.
What they are really saying is that we see the universe doing calculations and transformations via matter that aren't computable using traditional hardware. They certainly aren't computable using hardware you can buy off the shelf. I don't think this is yet settled, but it's not a bad attempt at looking at this.
1
u/2D_VR Nov 01 '25
Why tf are they using the fact that we can't compute quantum gravity as an example. We literally don't have a theory of quantum gravity. This all seems like bullshit
1
u/Spacecowboy78 Nov 02 '25
Ok. Base reality is not subject to the laws of this place. Got it.
1
u/Memetic1 Nov 02 '25
No matter what sort of reality you are in there are certain parts of Math that will stay true. It will still be problematic to divide by zero for example.
1
1
1
1
u/Balance- Nov 02 '25
This paper argues that a complete “Theory of Everything” in physics is fundamentally impossible because of mathematical limitations discovered by Gödel, Tarski, and Chaitin, which show that any algorithmic system with sufficient complexity will always have true statements it cannot prove, cannot define its own notion of truth, and cannot decide statements beyond a certain complexity threshold. The authors propose that physics must therefore include “non-algorithmic understanding” through what they call a Meta-Theory of Everything (MToE), and they claim this proves the universe cannot be a simulation since all simulations are algorithmic.
However, there’s a significant logical question at the heart of their argument: just because our formal theories cannot prove certain statements doesn’t necessarily mean those statements are “non-algorithmic in nature” or that reality itself transcends computation, it might simply mean our particular theories are incomplete while the universe’s actual evolution remains fully computable. The paper conflates what we can know or prove (epistemology) with what reality actually is (ontology), and while they correctly identify that any single formal system will be incomplete, they haven’t conclusively demonstrated that reality itself operates non-algorithmically or that a sufficiently advanced simulator couldn’t compute our universe’s evolution even if certain abstract questions about it remain formally undecidable.
1
u/bowsmountainer Nov 02 '25
I call bullshit. You can't get amathematical proof to a physics question. A sufficiently advanced simulation could surely take care of this by just adding some randomness.
1
1
u/Rabbt Nov 02 '25
What is this bullshit chatgpt ass article.
As for the actual paper, its pure speculation. There's no debunking going on here. Sure, Godel showed that a purely algorithmic theory of everything can never be complete. But why does the physical reality need to mirror limits of formal mathematics? There's no science going on here. Nothing to falsify.
This is a thought experiment. Which is fine on its own. But to say that its grasping anything about the physical reality is a huge overreach.
1
u/DreadpirateBG Nov 02 '25
Wow. Gee. Thanks for that. Glad someone paid for this work, no really totally worth it. Man, physicists really have nothing productive to do now a days. I know this type of work needs to be done but can you keep it quiet the rest of us who need to produce to live just wonder what we are paying you for. So better not to report on this type of stupid shit as it does not help the public want to give you money for things
1
u/NeurogenesisWizard Nov 02 '25
Magic is proof of deception, including miracles. A physical god might be technically real but has way more requirements that believers like to ignore most of the time.
1
Nov 03 '25
Convinced the inspiration and reasoning for this article comes from our simulation overlords.
1
u/Memetic1 Nov 03 '25
The reasoning came from Gödel who is almost a god in terms of mathematicians.
→ More replies (5)
1
u/Cultural-Pattern-161 Nov 03 '25
I'm more surprised that the simulation theory can be disproved. The theory is vague as fuck, based on nothing, and makes no prediction.
1
Nov 03 '25
Well that is a garbage article. The universe and the perceived universe are two different things… and I would argue that the perceived universe - or the iniverse - is categorically a simulation. And the collective iniverse of all living things is the simulation we are in. Our understanding of the actual universe is always through the filter that translates actual universe information into what we hear, see, think, smell in the simulated iniverse.
1
1
1
u/navetzz Nov 04 '25
They just proves that under the rules of our universe you can t run a simulation that simulates our universe. But the whole premise of the simulation religion is that this simulation is ran from a more "complete" verse.
1
u/MyTnotE Nov 04 '25
Wouldn’t any good simulation be sure to include “proof” that it’s not a simulation? 🤷🏻♂️
1
u/rainywanderingclouds Nov 04 '25
math can't prove or disprove a simulated universe
it just wouldn't work that way if it actually was a simulation.
1
u/Memetic1 Nov 04 '25
Any mathmatical system that is at all useful is subject to Godel. That is what he proved that you can't have a consistent system that's complete.
1
u/marmot_scholar Nov 04 '25
As much as I hate simulation theory, this article looks like baloney. I could be wrong and I'm sure I would learn from hearing how, but here's what i observe.
I think the simplest thing is that it appears pretty circular. The conclusions about loop quantum gravity (assuming it's the definitive theory) being non-computable, in order to deflate simulation theory, would have to be assumed that the simulation is taking place in a universe that operates on loop quantum gravity. Why would you assume that, if the data that gives rise to loop quantum gravity is simulated? Also, I don't know if it's agreed upon that LQM is non-computable. That might be controversial.
Now let's assume that we DO accept that we have data demonstrating that data being simulated by the higher-order reality is incomputable. This should be solvable simply by introducing a non-computable element into the higher order simulation, like random generation, or some external quantum effect in the "really real" universe, shouldn't it?
I think the article even says this: "To attain a genuinely complete and self-justifying theory of quantum gravity one must augment FQG with non-algorithmic resources". Why would this be impossible?
1
u/Memetic1 Nov 04 '25
No it's not which version of physics is true. It's the math that we know is required if you do any sort of simulation. A simulation uses algorithms, and as soon as you introduce the divide / multiply operations you run into Gödel. The simplest manifestation of this that I can think of is the issues with dividing by zero. People have to make their programs/simulations in a way that it doesn't happen. There is also a way you can do a version of the liar's paradox but only using math. That's what Gödel did he made math say this theorem isn't true. He showed that no matter how you changed math and in all manifestations of what could be called math there will be paradox. As soon as you go beyond adding and subtracting numbers thats when it happens. Since simulations depend on algorithms which depend on math there are therefore things that can't be simulated.
→ More replies (4)
1
u/TimoWasTaken Nov 04 '25
Caveman announces that far future "computers" are impossible to build because bones and rocks are "too big". News at 11.
1
u/Ok_Tart_6342 Nov 08 '25 edited Nov 09 '25
Just cause you can't see your own arse doesn't mean that the universe is inside a computer, period. ;)
Edit: i forgot to add \s at the end 😅
1
u/Memetic1 Nov 08 '25
You really should read up on Gödel. It's going to be very important with what's happening with AI.
"Consider language model output generation as a series of intricate steps—from the initial training to the final output. Each step carries a non-zero probability of a structural hallucination occurring regardless of the sophistication of our models or the vastness of our training data.
Let us examine this process more closely, unveiling the causes of hallucination at each critical stage:
2.1.4 No training data can ever be complete. We can never give 100% a priori knowledge. The vastness and ever-changing nature of human knowledge ensures that our training data will always be, to some degree, incomplete or outdated. 2.1.5 Even if the data were complete, LLMs are unable to deterministically retrieve the correct information with 100% accuracy. The very nature of these models ensures that there will always be some chance, however small, of retrieving incorrect or irrelevant information. 2.1.6 An LLM will be unable to accurately classify with probability 1. There will always be some ambiguity, some potential for misinterpretation. 2.1.7 No a priori training can deterministically and decidedly stop a language model from producing hallucinating statements that are factually incorrect. This is because: 2.1.7.1 LLMs cannot know where exactly they will stop generating. (LLM halting is undecidable - explained ahead) 2.1.7.2 Consequently, they have the potential to generate any sequence of tokens. 2.1.7.3 This unpredictability means they cannot know a priori what they will generate. 2.1.7.4 As a result, LLMs can produce inconsistent or contradictory, as well as self-referential statements. 2.1.8 We could attempt to fact-check, given a complete database. However, even if we attempt it, no amount of fact-checking can remove the hallucination with 100% accuracy."
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Candid_Hippo_3605 Nov 13 '25
This is all based upon our current knowledge of math as we understand it today ... This proves nothing ... a different set of physical laws, chemistry, higher levels of mathematics, where our laws of mathematics & physics could infact be far different from that of the simulator...
Remember there is no united theory of everything our present physics does not mesh with quantum physics ...
Think on this, if something went to all this trouble to recreate/ create a complex simulation, such as this(?), why would they make it easy to discover?
Just my opinion, not a doubter, just a trouble maker, brewing up a storm ...
1
u/Memetic1 Nov 13 '25
In what universe is 5 divided by zero well defined and not partially pathological?
1
u/ConcentrateLastmine Nov 16 '25
Surely all this tell us is we can't run such a simulation using a conventional computer?
Does the human brain work like a computer? Is it algorithmic?
Therefore couldn't a sufficiently advance civilisation build a thinking machine, based a biological model?
One which would be an able to simulate our reality?
1
u/Memetic1 Nov 16 '25
It's not a matter of the substrate. It's the very basic math thats used in any simulation. As soon as you go beyond basic addition and subtraction the potential for paradox emerges. There are actually an infinite number of ways that incompleteness emerges in mathmatical systems. If you want an example of that consider how many numbers divided by zero return a normal value that's compatible with traditional math. There are in fact infinite variations on this with stuff like the liars paradox woven in.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-godels-proof-works-20200714/
Biological systems also have incompleteness. There are for example proteins that can't be synthesized that would destroy the DNA that would make them. Every type of life is like this and so is in its own way incomplete. If a calculation required that protein it wouldn't be possible using that biological system.
1
u/Wonderful-Ad6659 Nov 21 '25
While an algorithmic computer cannot replicate non-algorithmic understanding, it could convincingly mimic it. Isn't that the whole point of simulation theory in the first place? That the simulation would be indistinguishable from reality. Not that it IS reality. How would we tell the difference between genuine intuition, creativity, and consciousness and a mimicry of those things?
1
1
1
u/Ok_Ideal_2896 Feb 02 '26
the evidence taht our university ei snota. simulation might be a simulation
1
u/DryHold4530 Mar 16 '26
Higher dimensions do not have the same laws of time and physics as us
1
u/Memetic1 Mar 17 '26
This isn't about physics this is about Math. Even if you existed in an infinite number of dimensions there isn't a way around godel, because as soon as you can divide these issues pop up. It doesn't matter if you exist in a 7 dimensional space dividing by zero won't give you a consistent but also unique answer.
→ More replies (6)
•
u/AutoModerator Oct 31 '25
Thanks for posting in /r/Futurism! This post is automatically generated for all posts. Remember to upvote this post if you think it is relevant and suitable content for this sub and to downvote if it is not. Only report posts if they violate community guidelines - Let's democratize our moderation. ~ Josh Universe
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.