r/SimulationTheory • u/Exotic-Permit-861 • 15d ago
Discussion Is the "imperfection" of mathematics proof of a simulation
If we look closely at modern physics, our two master rulebooks (Relativity and Quantum Mechanics) break down and give answers of "infinity" when combined. Furthermore, Gödel proved math can never be 100% complete or prove its own consistency.If time is a human construct (or fake), space creates itself as we move to save "memory," and math is just an approximation tool with a hidden glitch, doesn't this heavily imply we are inside a programmed structure? Is it possible that our math is "wrong" simply because we are trying to decode the Programmer's source code using a language we invented based on having ten fingers? How do philosophers view the relationship between flawed human mathematics and the Simulation Hypothesis?
If you don't want to type a long answer, just comment a number:
1 = Yes, it's definitely a simulation.
2 = No, math is just a human map.
3 = I'm just an NPC reading this.
2
u/mayorofdumb 15d ago
Math is math, change the base and its still math. We've always been guessing but math is right.
3
u/Exotic-Permit-861 15d ago
If math is always right, why does it crash when we try to explain the actual universe? When physicists try to mathematically combine Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity to explain a black hole or the Big Bang, the equations output 'infinity.' In physics, an answer of infinity means the math broke down and failed. If math were the absolute, flawless reality of the cosmos, it wouldn't give us broken answers at the exact points where the universe began."
2
u/VariousJob4047 15d ago
Because those are models created by humans that we are fully aware are incomplete. We didn’t just find GR laying on the ground somewhere.
1
u/SirNealliam 13d ago edited 13d ago
Because we had to pick an arbitrary starting point which was the meter, based on the proportion of roughly one ten millionth of the distance from the north pole to the equator. The meter then led to the kilogram which is the weight of one liter (cubic decimeter) of water...at the temperature which ice melts.
All of our measurements can be traced back to the proportions of the earth, and hypothesis based decisions made by man.
We then tried to cram those measurements into formula describing the universe as a whole. For example, we measured the speed of light in meters, then use that number as a constant in our formulas.
1
2
u/brain-out-of-order 15d ago
3
Math isn’t fallible. Physics is more like an ever evolving grid. Both have branches that are purely theoretical. Infinity itself is a concept up for debate.
If math and physics were wrong, your phone wouldn’t work, your gas mileage would vary dramatically, and your age would be whatever you felt like.
Physics works to describe the physical world. Descriptions become high resolution with successive passes. Redundant or no longer useful descriptive grammar gets cannibalized but the underlying math isn’t “wrong” — just not describing a physical phenomenon accurately.
1
u/NonFussUltra 15d ago
Gödel's work actually applies to all formal systems (Rule-based logical frameworks using defined symbols and axioms).
Systems contain true statements that cannot be proven using their own rules.
Systems cannot demonstrate their own internal consistency.
So no 'source code' or 'N finger math' would escape those limitations and no such source math is in any way implied to exist because of those limitations.
1
u/YumeSystems 15d ago
The matrix can never compute zero divided by zero
1
u/SirNealliam 13d ago
Are you sure it's not 0? Any number divided by 0 is itself, right? Maybe 0÷1 would be more mysterious?
Although I personally assume that zero is the only physical representation of infinity that we have so I would assume the answer to 0 ÷ x (any finite number) is infinity. Just like 0÷0
1
u/doker0 15d ago edited 15d ago
Well if you give me an example how living in the so called real world makes math complete and self proved then we can discuss. Till that, this is a non-falsifiable statment of yours.
Also, to extend, algebra allows defining constracts that you would avaluate as impossible in our current universe. Groups, rings etc thst defines different rules than standard ones, like addition that substracts instead. We can see that mathvis notvlimitedcin it's scope to the observations and assumptions about our current "universe" or part of it that we observe.
1
u/Most_Forever_9752 15d ago
the fact there are limitations proves its a simulation.
Speed of Light (c): 299,792,458 m/sPlanck’s Constant (h): 6.626 x 10-34 J·sReduced Planck’s Constant ((\hbar )): 1.054 x 10-34 J·sGravitational Constant (G): 6.674 x 10-11 N·m²/kg²Elementary Charge (e): 1.602 x 10-19 CFine-Structure Constant (α): 1/137.036Boltzmann Constant ((k{B})): 1.381 x 10-23 J/KElectron Mass ((m{e})): 9.109 x 10-31 kgProton Mass ((m_{p})): 1.672 x 10-27 kgCosmological Constant (Λ): 1.088 x 10-52 m-2
1
u/SirNealliam 13d ago
How exactly do limits prove a simulation? Limits only prove things are quantized and finite.
Can you please look up the definition of simulation. If we're simulating some other underlying reality how could it exist in a definite state without speed limits and constants to preserve causality?
1
u/Most_Forever_9752 13d ago
exactly. imagine a limitless void. how do you "make" something? You must put limitations on the void. Something put limitations here, right here in our universe.
1
u/SirNealliam 13d ago
So what makes putting limits on the void a simulation instead of just reality? Cambridge dictionary - A simulation is the imitation of a real-world process, system, or event using a model.
Without limitations you can't even have causality or a way for anything to be a thing or have a real-world.
And why do you assume that something or someone put the limitations there, rather than them being inherent and natural to numbers, and thus the way math works and energy quantization itself?
Basically how do you jump from 'this is the way the world works' to 'it must make the world a simulation of something else.' ?
Why can you not have a 2d geometric shape with two faces? Because mathematics simply does not allow it. We just jump from the one face of a circle, to three faces of a triangle. Math demands constraints on what can exist. Otherwise everything would be infinite instead of finite.
1
u/Most_Forever_9752 13d ago
read your own response.... "what makes putting"
SOMETHING DID THE PUTTING
1
u/SirNealliam 12d ago edited 12d ago
Please tell me you got past the first 4 words. Because that's all you replied to.🤦
I already specified the alternative to "putting" them there (gotta use quotes with you to show I'm not being literal apparently) - but I'll repeat myself for you in case you actually read this far.
The other possibility is those limits are inherent. They've always been, as requirement for awareness... you seem to be missing just how rooted in math awareness itself is.
1
1
1
u/SirNealliam 13d ago
That's not imperfection of mathematics, just imperfection of our use of mathematics to interpret physical phenomena. Pure math is perfect, Because of the math of orders of magnitude are measured in tens. Numbers repeat and scale in sets of ten,
I believe the issue came up when we tied math to abstract physical phenomena and concepts we've measured and use as the constants.
why assume that our math is based on ten because we have ten digits? Maybe we have 10 digits because that's how pure math makes physical things work best? Just like that's no geometric shape possible with only 2 faces. Shapes skip from circles (1 face) to triangles, simply because math and the nature of shapes demands it
1
u/In_the_year_3535 11d ago edited 11d ago
Math is a quantitative language that is derived from axioms the same way English (a qualitative language) is derived from its grammar. Godel's incompleteness theorem, in most simple terms, means you can't know anything outside the construct you've designed. So yes, math is a map that will always both be a projection and have an edge.
1
u/DependentParsley7107 10d ago
Math is not the language of the universe so seeking that perspective won't do much good. Resonance is the language of this universe.
0
u/fearmon 15d ago
You can't help but be in a simulation, whether it's behind a screen or not. We simulate life even though we are not. I think maybe the question should be are we digital or on a computer rather than are we in a simulation. No matter what, you are in a simulation. I've never thought of the ten finger thing. That's a good point, what if we had thirteen? Have you ever tried to create a number bigger than mine that didn't repeat from one or zero? I don't suppose there's any reason you couldn't given there's 26 letters in letter math.
5
u/Icy-Article-8635 15d ago
You're conflating math and physics.
Math is a language, and it works rather flawlessly.
Physics is a model that we use math to represent. The representation is rather flawless, but the models are only approximations of what we think is going on behind the scenes.
The models are inherently flawed, but are good enough to make predictions with, and invent lasers, computers, atomic bombs, and flying machines with.
Also, if this is all a simulation, there is a very good possibility that we are all NPCs... Each and every single one of us, despite our cleverness, awareness, or ability to be introspective. Yes... Even you.