60
submitted 2 months ago by Zerush@lemmy.ml to c/science@lemmy.ml

A team of physicists led by Mir Faizal at the University of British Columbia has demonstrated that the universe cannot be a computer simulation, according to research published in October 2025[^1].

The key findings show that reality requires non-algorithmic understanding that cannot be simulated computationally. The researchers used mathematical theorems from Gödel, Tarski, and Chaitin to prove that a complete description of reality cannot be achieved through computation alone[^1].

The team proposes that physics needs a "Meta Theory of Everything" (MToE) - a non-algorithmic layer above the algorithmic one to determine truth from outside the mathematical system[^1]. This would help investigate phenomena like the black hole information paradox without violating mathematical rules.

"Any simulation is inherently algorithmic – it must follow programmed rules," said Faizal. "But since the fundamental level of reality is based on non-algorithmic understanding, the universe cannot be, and could never be, a simulation"[^1].

Lawrence Krauss, a co-author of the study, explained: "The fundamental laws of physics cannot exist inside space and time; they create it. This signifies that any simulation, which must be utilized within a computational framework, would never fully express the true universe"[^2].

The research was published in the Journal of Holography Applications in Physics[^1].

[^1]: ScienceAlert - Physicists Just Ruled Out The Universe Being a Simulation

[^2]: The Brighter Side - The universe is not and could never be a simulation, study finds

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] CeffTheCeph@kbin.earth 8 points 2 months ago

This is the third time I have seen this story come up from three different science journalism websites recently.

Here is the actual published proof.

It seems a lot of commenters on these threads have a lot of skepticism about the authors claims, as we should with such a bold claim. Are there any mathematicians or logicians here that can actually unpack the proof with scrutiny and explain it to me in lay terms?

[-] AnarchoEngineer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 months ago

Meant to reply to you but ended up replying to the main post. I’m only an amateur mathematician but maybe you’ll find my take useful

[-] CeffTheCeph@kbin.earth 2 points 2 months ago
load more comments (2 replies)
this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2025
60 points (75.4% liked)

Science

18898 readers
46 users here now

Subscribe to see new publications and popular science coverage of current research on your homepage


founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS