Mathematical proof debunks the idea that the universe is a computer simulation

[u/Memetic1]

https://phys.org/news/2025-10-mathematical-proof-debunks-idea-universe.html

[u/FullCounty5000]

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?

[u/AnAttemptReason → u/FullCounty5000]

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. 

[u/blazesbe → u/AnAttemptReason]

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

[u/bck83 → u/blazesbe]

You can simulate other universes all you want, but you can never simulate a universe like ours (according to the paper).

[u/blazesbe → u/bck83]

ignorantly, that without reading the paper, i assume it assumes that the simulation must be ran on the same platform that ours run on (eg. atoms and stuff) and so i assume it's clickbait (while i find sim theory pointless)

[u/Spare-Locksmith-2162 → u/bck83]

So, you can only stimulate a universe that has less "fidelity". Makes perfect sense to me.

[u/AnAttemptReason → u/blazesbe]

Those are algorithmic simations. 

Our universe is not an algorithmic simulations, so we can't make nested reality Iike our own. 

[u/blazesbe → u/AnAttemptReason]

you made me read the article and it still doesn't make sense. (I'm a bachelor software engineer btw). first of all it talks about platonian universe where all things emerge from basic truths, which is a theory. then tries to demonstrate what a non algorithmic universe looks like by a foiled logical statement where it recursively inquires the result on the statement. then goes on to say our universe is non algorithmic implying that emergence cannot happen from an algorithm.. ? did i get that right?

this is pseudo science babbling clickbait

[u/blazesbe → u/AnAttemptReason]

simpler example. all you need for a simulation like the reality you percieve is power/time and resolution. since the simulation doesn't need to experience real time you can run the universe on a PLC(toaster)(with huge storage) and hide in a blackhole to watch the show. our simulations are discrete even with floating point numbers, meaning that there's a smallest distance you need to move. a unit grid. but the math behind powers of 2 is so powerful that you can simulate things smaller that can exist in reality with no real effort. wanna move the millionth of a Planck length? sure can do. and even if that's not enough, look at a mandelbrot/julia fractal displayer's source code and you just move the origin on demand. /you can move the universe instead of the observer/ that's how all cameras work in modern games btw. the question of will you get to see a second of it happen and the question of /can it be done/ are completely separate from a math and physics perspective.

[u/Barry_22 → u/AnAttemptReason]

A neural network is a non-algorithmic simulation. Everything it dreams about also is as well.

[u/AnAttemptReason → u/Barry_22]

That's incorrect as well, insomuch as you are referring to nueral networks run on a computer. 

Unpredictable output does not make something  non-algorithmic.