Mathematical proof debunks the idea that the universe is a computer simulation

[Tom D]

MSN

But it does mention 'pure information' which is what.

Dr. Mir Faizal, Adjunct Professor with UBC Okanagan's Irving K. Barber Faculty of Science, and his international colleagues, Drs. Lawrence M. Krauss, Arshid Shabir and Francesco Marino have shown that the fundamental nature of reality operates in a way that no computer could ever simulate.
Their findings, published in the Journal of Holography Applications in Physics, go beyond simply suggesting that we're not living in a simulated world like The Matrix. They prove something far more profound: the universe is built on a type of understanding that exists beyond the reach of any algorithm.

The research hinges on a fascinating property of reality itself. Modern physics has moved far beyond Newton's tangible "stuff" bouncing around in space. Einstein's theory of relativity replaced Newtonian mechanics. Quantum mechanics transformed our understanding again. Today's cutting-edge theory—quantum gravity—suggests that even space and time aren't fundamental. They emerge from something deeper: pure information.

"We have demonstrated that it is impossible to describe all aspects of physical reality using a computational theory of quantum gravity," says Dr. Faizal. "Therefore, no physically complete and consistent theory of everything can be derived from computation alone. Rather, it requires a non-algorithmic understanding, which is more fundamental than the computational laws of quantum gravity and therefore more fundamental than spacetime itself."

 

[Charles West]

MSN

But it does mention 'pure information' which is what.

Dr. Mir Faizal, Adjunct Professor with UBC Okanagan's Irving K. Barber Faculty of Science, and his international colleagues, Drs. Lawrence M. Krauss, Arshid Shabir and Francesco Marino have shown that the fundamental nature of reality operates in a way that no computer could ever simulate.
Their findings, published in the Journal of Holography Applications in Physics, go beyond simply suggesting that we're not living in a simulated world like The Matrix. They prove something far more profound: the universe is built on a type of understanding that exists beyond the reach of any algorithm.

The research hinges on a fascinating property of reality itself. Modern physics has moved far beyond Newton's tangible "stuff" bouncing around in space. Einstein's theory of relativity replaced Newtonian mechanics. Quantum mechanics transformed our understanding again. Today's cutting-edge theory—quantum gravity—suggests that even space and time aren't fundamental. They emerge from something deeper: pure information.

"We have demonstrated that it is impossible to describe all aspects of physical reality using a computational theory of quantum gravity," says Dr. Faizal. "Therefore, no physically complete and consistent theory of everything can be derived from computation alone. Rather, it requires a non-algorithmic understanding, which is more fundamental than the computational laws of quantum gravity and therefore more fundamental than spacetime itself."

Very cool.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

Early scientists tried to apply simple formulas for rigid wings, like those of an airplane, to the flexible, rapidly flapping wings of a bee, and the models incorrectly concluded that bees couldn't generate enough lift.

 

[Mark K]

Early scientists tried to apply simple formulas for rigid wings, like those of an airplane, to the flexible, rapidly flapping wings of a bee, and the models incorrectly concluded that bees couldn't generate enough lift.

And scientists today try to apply 'modern' physics to events a million light years away to understand what's happening. There will always be a lot of things happening in the universe that can't be explained using physics as we know it today.

I've gotten to the point where I'm not convinced that spending Billions of $ on space probes is a good use of money. There's plenty of things on Earth that can't be explained yet; lets spend taxpayer $$ closer to home.

 

[Alsie35]

The only thing this study proved is that we don't have a computer or perhaps even the analytical ability to understand the complexity of the universe.

It does not mean that somebody else didn't, and couldn't have set up the system that in effect is a simulation to run as a universe.

So essentially this is nothing but clickbait dressed up in mathematical and theoretical complexity that guarantees that 99.9% of us can't even understand what the hell he's talking about!

(You gotta think outside the box)

 

[Mark K]

So essentially this is nothing but clickbait dressed up in mathematical and theoretical complexity that guarantees that 99.9% of us can't even understand what the hell he's talking about!
(You gotta think outside the box)

99.9%, or more, can't even begin to grasp the size of our galaxy and the number of stars/planets therein. And there's an equally large, or larger, number of galaxies in the known universe.

A physics professor told the class that he'd give an A for the semester to anyone that would write down the numbers from 1 to 1 Million. He wanted to impress on us the size of numbers, and a million is not a large number. Needless to say, after doing the math, nobody took him up on his offer.

 

[Artemis Fowl]

So many words used to describe the simple concept that just maybe because God wills it so.


The following anecdote is told of William James. [...] After a lecture on cosmology and the structure of the solar system, James was accosted by a little old lady.

"Your theory that the sun is the centre of the solar system, and the earth is a ball which rotates around it has a very convincing ring to it, Mr. James, but it's wrong. I've got a better theory," said the little old lady.

"And what is that, madam?" inquired James politely.

"That we live on a crust of earth which is on the back of a giant turtle."

Not wishing to demolish this absurd little theory by bringing to bear the masses of scientific evidence he had at his command, James decided to gently dissuade his opponent by making her see some of the inadequacies of her position.

"If your theory is correct, madam," he asked, "what does this turtle stand on?"

"You're a very clever man, Mr. James, and that's a very good question," replied the little old lady, "but I have an answer to it. And it's this: The first turtle stands on the back of a second, far larger, turtle, who stands directly under him."

"But what does this second turtle stand on?" persisted James patiently.

To this, the little old lady crowed triumphantly,

"It's no use, Mr. James—it's turtles all the way down."
-from Wikipedia...sorry shoulda used Grokipedia

This is actually the concept of infinite regression. There's always another level. The Old Lady is probably more correct than she appears to be.

 

[TerryRohrer]

bees couldn't generate enough lift.

They can, however, disconnect their wings so that the same rapid muscle movements generate heat, much like we and our dogs shiver. This allows them to maintain a hive temperature between 80 and 95 degrees when ambient temperatures are far below zero.

 

[Tom D]

Evolution has yet to explain the complexities of anything, and how a change has to work the 1st evolutionary time, or your dead before the 2nd evolution. Our current theory of evolution is for the simple minded, mostly everyone. The answer is always, they evolved into that. Makes the ignorant masses need not think any deeper.

To be honest, this has come out of the understanding of quantum theory. I will admit, it is very difficult to understand all the new info coming out. So, ignorance may be bliss indeed.

 

[ucbruin]

Evolution is always evolving....