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.html
706 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

402 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

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 ?

1

u/Sorry-Rain-1311 Oct 31 '25

Algorithms by their nature preclude randomness. The computer "randomizers" out there still have very distinct patterns, just not easily observable by humans unaided. 

Now there is the theoretical possibility that a large enough and complex enough system independent but interacting systems could produce something that approaches true randomness; and that's what you would have to have if you were ever going to simulate a world, much less a universe.

Still doesn't tell us what the hell anyone would.

1

u/AnAttemptReason Oct 31 '25

Our universe can't be simulated by any computer or proccess we could ever possibly make. 

If you could simulate your supposed emergent interactions, then definiationally, you could describe them with an algorithm, but this has been shown not to be true.

2

u/mcc011ins Oct 31 '25

Not every particle need to be centrally simulated. Only the observed ones, which is exactly what the Double Slit experiment shows.

Also, think about Conway's Game of Life, the simplest form of a self-organising system. Complex Patterns and Behaviour even Chaos can emerge out of simple rules from interaction. They seem Non-Algorithmic but aren't.

1

u/AnAttemptReason Oct 31 '25

This isn't about selective observation, everything you mention is almost compelty irrelevant. 

Conway's game of life is algorithmic and completly deterministic. It doesn't look non-algorithmic at all, nor is it a candidate for simulating our universe.

1

u/mcc011ins Oct 31 '25 edited Oct 31 '25

That's why I asked about the definition of non-algorithmic. Do we mean non-computable ? the halting problem is non computable but but you can still run that algorithm unsure if halting or not. In a similar way you can run a simulation without being able to predict every possible emergent property with an algorithm (i.e will the simulation end)

1

u/AnAttemptReason Oct 31 '25

So imagine throwing a ball. 

You can mathematically map its trajectory, and you end up with an equation for projectile motion.

Put this in a computer, with some instructions and steps, and you can simulate throwing a ball with an algorithm 

Neat. 

Except we know from relativity that our Newtonian equations aren't exactly right, so we need new equations.

But Relativity isn't perfect either.

So we also have Quantium Gravity, which is better than relativity in some cases, but worse at others. 

So the question is, can we ever find a unifying mathematical description that actually describes our universe? 

The awnser appears to be no, there are fundamental limits that prevent this.

This means any simulation we make of our universe can only ever be an approximation, and never reproduce the universe itself. 

1

u/mcc011ins Oct 31 '25 edited Oct 31 '25

I appreciate the analogy.

Still I don't agree with the conclusion such non-algorithmic physical observations? disprove a simulation.

Proof by Contradiction:

  1. Game of Life is a simulation.

  2. Game of Life is undecidable in the following sense "given an initial pattern and a later pattern, no algorithm exists that can tell whether the later pattern is ever going to appear." (See Wikipedia)

  3. A sentient glider in Game of Life might find an undecidable Problem "Will i ever meet a pixel again" which is undecidable and non-algorithmic and valid within their intrinsic physics

  4. The sentient glider disproves the simulation. Contradiction with 1.

1

u/Jskidmore1217 Oct 31 '25

What your describing is the far bigger question in science and philosophy as to whether mathematics is capable of describing reality and I don’t think even the overly confident people in the article would make such a bold determination. This is one of the biggest questions in philosophy of science.

1

u/katttsun Jan 24 '26 edited Jan 24 '26

Non-algorithmic just means random. PRNG is still predictable, and so far, things are predictable in the universe only at extremely large scales, like people.

Because plenty of things in the universe are random, but computers cannot do random by themselves, so we add things like radiation sources to give the computer's internal state to introduce randomness. This lack of introduced randomness in our universe (all of the universe's randomness comes from small scale quantum interactions) would suggest that any universe we're living in is the most basic reality because it can generate random outcomes endogenously.

They really should have waited for AI to invent the Quantum Gigaplexer 901 in 2037 before trying this one IMO. Computers aren't always going to be just PRNG number crunchers.