Lol, because these guys imagine the outer universe in which ours is built has the same rules and limitations. Also because they can't wrap their minds around our universe's rules doesn't mean they make no sense to higher beings. Life in conway's game would equally produce the same wrong statement

Oh those mathers. At least scientists are humble enough to recognize that theorums about the physical world can't be proven.

Dr. Faizal says the same limitation applies to physics. “We have demonstrated that it is impossible to describe all aspects of physical reality using a computational theory of quantum gravity,” he explains. 

“Therefore, no physically complete and consistent theory of everything can be derived from computation alone.”

Your argument is bad and you should feel bad.

Impossible to describe does not mean that it’s not possible to simulate, and impossible is an incredibly strong criterion that sounds quite inaccurate to me. We simulate weather systems all the time, even though the systems are fundamentally chaotic and it’s impossible to forecast accurately. We don’t even know that gravity is quantum, so that’s quite a weird starting point but we’ll ignore that for a second. What is this argument?

This seems like a huge leap to conclude that just because some aspects of our understanding seem like we wouldn’t be able to fully describe them somehow means that the universe can’t be simulated.

“Drawing on mathematical theorems related to incompleteness and indefinability, we demonstrate that a fully consistent and complete description of reality cannot be achieved through computation alone,” says Dr. Faizal.

Who’s to say that reality is completely defined? Perhaps there are aspects to what we consider the real universe that are uncertain. Isn’t that foundational to quantum mechanics?

"If we assume X theorem is true, Y theorem is true, and lemma Z is true, then ..."

This is actually about our models and seeing their incompleteness in a new light, right? I don't think starting from arbitrary axioms and then trying to build reality was about proving qualities about reality. Or am I wrong? Just seems like they're using "simulated reality" as a way to talk about our models for reality. By constructing a "silly" argument about how we can't possibly be in a matrix, they're revealing just how much we're still missing.

I highly suggest to listen to this podcast with Damien P. Williams and Paris Marx:

“No, we don't live in a f---ing simulation”

https://ouropinionsarecorrect.libsyn.com/no-were-not-living-in-a-f-ing-simulation

That's just what they fucking want you to think.

The uptime is too good to be a simulation. It has an uptime of like 14 billions years! AWS has a lot of catching up to do. /s

Exactly what the simulation would say

This is akin to cavemen concluding there's no way an mri scanner could be possible.

This doesn't really address the idea that our simulation is a simplified version of the "real" universe though does it?

I thought the rebuttal to this was covered in 'The Thirteenth Floor'. They don't have to simulate the entire universe, and it doesn't have to be consistent. Just the parts that the PCs are looking at.

I'm not even going to mention what tricks they can do with the rewind button.

Anyways this paper was likely written by an NPC.

Buncha fee fees about to start rejecting reality

It's possible that the universe could be simulated by an advanced people with vastly superior technology.

Hard solipsism has no answer and no bearing on our lives, so it's best to not give it another thought.

Inside a turtle's dream theory still not disproven

The simulation idea doesn't work only because people apply it incorrectly. Our brains do in fact create our experiences with no contact to the world outside our bodies, its our sensory organs that give data to the brain to create our perception of experiencing things.

We are all partly made of simulators, but knowing this changes nothing for each of us since we can start associating ourselves with a larger force of nature that happens when we group ourselves together for changes we want to see in the world.

This paper is shit.

https://jhap.du.ac.ir/article_488_8e072972f66d1fb748b47244c4813c86.pdf

They proved absolutely nothing.

For instance, they treat physics as a formal axiomatic system, which is fine for a human model of the physical world, but not for the physical world itself.

You can't say something is "unprovable" and make a logical leap to saying it is "physically undecidable." Gödel-incompleteness produces unprovable sentences inside a formal system, it doesn’t imply that physical observables correspond to those sentences.

I could go on but the paper is 12 short pages of non-sequiturs and logical leaps, with references to invoke formality, it's a joke that an article like this is being passed around and taken as reality.

I can't explain how much I hate simulation theory. As a thought experiment? Fine. It's interesting to think of the universe in the context of code and logic. But as a driving philosophy of reality? Pointless.

Most proponents of simulation theory will say it's impossible to prove the universe is a simulation, because we exist inside it. Then who cares? There obviously must exist a non-simulated universe for the mega computer we're all running on to inhabit, so it's a pointless step along finding the true nature if reality. It's stoner solipsism for guys that buy nfts. It's the "it was all a dream" ending of philosophy.

This is such a boring take, I wonder how anyone gets funding or publication making a statement as useless as "see godels incompleteness theorem that proves that there's more truth than what mathematics can prove, therefore reality is not a simulation". Yes, we know, you don't need a PhD to know the major theorem that took down the entire school of logical positivism. The fundamental philosophical error here is assuming that all forms of simulation are computational or mathematical. Counterexample: your dreams are a form of simulation (probably). So I can literally disprove this take in my sleep

I was under the impression that something along these lines was already accepted from the perspective of information theory. I.e. a machine that could simulate the universe must at least be composed of as much information as the universe itself. Given the vastness and complexity of the universe, this would make it rather unlikely that the universe is simulated. Unless you want to view the universe itself as a machine that calculates it's own progression. But that is a bit of a semantic point.

Disclaimer: this is not my area of expertise and I probably got some terms or concepts wrong. I am basing this off of 'The information' by James Gleick