A recent study led by Dr. Mir Faizal at the University of British Columbia (UBC) Okanagan argues that the universe cannot be a computer simulation due to fundamental mathematical limitations. The findings were published in the Journal of Holography Applications in Physics.
Core Argument
The study moves beyond the issue of processing power and posits a logical barrier to simulating the universe. The researchers argue that a complete and consistent description of physical reality cannot be achieved through computation alone because reality contains what they call “non-algorithmic understanding”.
The argument is based on key mathematical theorems:
- Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem: This theorem, applied to physics, suggests that within any consistent, formal system (like a set of laws for a simulation), there will always be true statements that cannot be proven within that system.
- Turing’s Halting Problem: This concept relates to the limits of what algorithms can compute.
Key Conclusion
Since any simulation is inherently algorithmic (operating on a set of programmed rules), it cannot produce these non-algorithmic truths present in our universe. Therefore, the study concludes that the universe, as we understand it, cannot be a simulation.
Reception
The simulation hypothesis has long been a subject of philosophical debate and popular speculation, with supporters including individuals like Elon Musk and Neil deGrasse Tyson. This study has generated significant discussion, with news sources presenting it as a definitive “proof” that debunks the hypothesis. However, other physicists and commentators have noted that the study makes assumptions, such as defining a simulation strictly in a way that may not encompass all hypothetical forms of advanced reality creation, and the topic remains a subject of ongoing discussion rather than a universally accepted “proof” in the scientific community.
If simulation theory is wrong then universe is natural
If the
simulation hypothesis is incorrect, the prevailing scientific and philosophical view is that the universe is natural—meaning it is the fundamental, objective reality and operates according to its own intrinsic physical laws. This is considered the baseline assumption in science.
The Natural Universe as the Default
The simulation hypothesis is a speculative idea that posits an external creator or higher intelligence, making the universe “secondary” or “artificial”. Disproving this “artificial” origin defaults the explanation back to a “natural” one. In this context:
- Natural implies that the universe, with its physical laws and properties, is the originating reality and not a construct running within some other, more complex reality.
- The universe simply exists as is, without requiring an external “programmer” or a “parent universe” to explain its existence or function.
Not a Simple Dichotomy
While “natural” is the leading alternative, the nature of reality is still a profound philosophical and scientific question. The debate is often framed as a dichotomy, but other metaphysical possibilities exist outside the scope of current scientific inquiry.
Scientific reasoning generally favors the simplest explanation that fits the evidence, which is the natural universe governed by our observed laws of physics (a principle known as Occam’s Razor). The burden of proof lies with those who propose a more complex, “unnatural” explanation, such as a simulation or a divine creator.
Please like subscribe comment your precious thoughts on universe discoveries
Full article source google
Universe discoveries 
🙏🌹
Aum Shanti
LikeLiked by 1 person