It’s a plot device beloved by science fiction: our entire universe might be a simulation running on some advanced civilization’s supercomputer. But new research from UBC Okanagan has mathematically proven this isn’t just unlikely—it’s impossible.
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.
“It has been suggested that the universe could be simulated. If such a simulation were possible, the simulated universe could itself give rise to life, which in turn might create its own simulation. This recursive possibility makes it seem highly unlikely that our universe is the original one, rather than a simulation nested within another simulation,” says Dr. Faizal. “This idea was once thought to lie beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. However, our recent research has demonstrated that it can, in fact, be scientifically addressed.”
let’s play a fun game where we read a “breaking news” story about a scientific “discovery” and count the reasons to be skeptical about it
by Patty Wellborn, University of British Columbia
…
Dr. Mir Faizal, Adjunct Professor with UBC Okanagan’s Irving K. Barber Faculty of Science
right off the bat - you have a conflict of interest where the person writing this is from the same university as the lead author.
this article is stylized to read like “news” but it’s probably more accurate to treat it like you would a press release.
and in fact, this same text is on UBC’s website where it explicitly says “Content type: Media Release”
Patty Wellborn’s author page there seems to indicate that writing this kind of press release is a major part of her job
and his international colleagues, Drs. Lawrence M. Krauss
huh…that name sounds familiar…let me go check his wikipedia page and oh look there’s a Controversies section with “Relationship with Jeffrey Epstein” and “Allegations of sexual misconduct” subsections.
Their findings, published in the Journal of Holography Applications in Physics
that journal is published by Damghan University in Iran
there’s a ton of xenophobia and Islamophobia that gets turned up to 11 when people in the English-speaking world start discussing Iran, so I don’t want to dismiss this journal out-of-hand…but their school of physics has 2 full professors?
if I was going to find out “oh Damghan is actually well-regarded for physics research” or something that’s not what I’d expect to see
but anyway, let’s look at the paper itself
except, hold on, it’s not a paper, it’s a letter:
Document Type : Letter
that’s an important difference:
Letters: This is a very ambiguous category, primarily defined by being short, often <1000 words. They may be used to report a single piece of information, often from part of a larger study, or may be used to respond to another paper. These may or may not go out for peer review - for example, I recently had a paper accepted where the decision was made entirely by the editor.
reading a bit further:
Received: June 6, 2025; Accepted: June 17, 2025
this is “proving” something fundamental about the nature of the universe…and the entire review process took 11 calendar days? (basically one work week, the 6th was a Friday and the 17th was a Tuesday)
“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,” Dr. Faizal explains. “It requires non-algorithmic understanding, which by definition is beyond algorithmic computation and therefore cannot be simulated. Hence, this universe cannot be a simulation.”
aren’t they basing this conclusion on their current “understanding” of what computers are capable of, and assuming that their current limitations will remain limitations forever? not saying the universe is definitely a simulation, but you don’t have to go too far back in time for the tech we have today to seem like impossible “magic” even to the smartest most imaginative scientists
Skimmed through their paper. They’re not arguing about physical computers, but computers as a mathematical construct (like Turing Machines).
Seems like they’re arguing that the universe is undecidable (like Gödel incompleteness and halting problem). This means no mathematical formula can describe the universe - and in turn no algorithm.
A lot of their argument goes above my head though.
Computers are defined as machines that preform a series of arithmetic and logic operations.
The point being that this kind of math is not capable of simulating a universe. If it did something else, it wouldn’t be a computer. It would be something else.
The point being that this kind of math is not capable of simulating a universe. If it did something else, it wouldn’t be a computer. It would be something else.
the “something else” is the thing-- saying that it’s impossible for the universe to be a simulation is going ahead and claiming that there will never ever be a “something else” that could do the computation, or, have the “non-algorithmic understanding” they’re talking about.
which to my mind is on an equal plane as “we don’t know why X happened, therefore god exists”
edit: interestingly, speaking of “god,” hermeticists believe the universe itself is a mental projection “all is mind,” the principle of mentalism. from that point of view, our universe isn’t a “simulation” per se, but more like a dream. or nightmare. more nightmare than dream at this point
https://www.mindbodygreen.com/articles/7-hermetic-principles
Saying that the universe could be a simulation, when we have no evidence for that assertion is the same as saying “god could have made the universe”
Like, we can’t prove that isn’t true, but why they hell would I believe it’s a reasonable possibility if there is no evidence suggesting it as a possibility.
if there is no evidence suggesting it as a possibility
100 years ago there was no evidence that you (and everyone) would have not just a phone, but an actual computer in their pocket. “balderdash!” they would have said if you suggested it. “preposterous! impossible!”
again i’m not saying we ARE in a simulation, nor am i telling you what to believe, but i’m still skeptical of the “it’s impossible, proven by my math” claim, seeing as how so many “certainties” throughout history have had to be adjusted–or discarded–due to new developments
It’s not worth considering as a real possibility until a plausible pathway by which it could be done is presented. Not even like, a practical pathway, just something that could theoretically accomplish the task.
This paper is just saying that computers could not even theoretically do the task. There is no possible sequences of arithmetic or logical operations that could do it. And a computer is definitionally a machine that carries out sequences of arithmetic or logical operations.
But outside of the confines of the reality we are in it could be on a universal computing device simulating all the reality rules we live by. We would never know because we can’t be outside the reality we are in. Compute position of neutrino, update position, collate interaction with calculated gravity of blahblahblah. We can’t actually comment on what’s “outside” reality.
if We cannot simulate a universe on a computer then the argument for why we would be a simulation is removed in turn, by the logic of the thought experiment.
Since the jist of the argument is that if it was possible, there would likely be an infinite number of simulations simulating each other up and down a chain, and in an infinite series it’s unlikely we’d happen to be the one at the top of the chain. It’s also equally unlikely that we’re at the end of an infinite chain.
So, if we can’t simulate here, no reason to believe we are a simulation in turn. Just like how there is no reason to believe in an as yet unobserved teapot floating between here and mars.
We can simulate any universe we want, we code the rules of how the universe operates and let it play out. If you want our exact universe we’d need more computer power.
More compute power than the entire universe could provide.
Right, if you havea VM it takes a hypervisor machine, the hypervisor is more powerful than the VM. You obviously can’t emulate your own reality inside your reality; That makes no sense. If we were in a SIM the outer machine would be a system not operating by our rules, and would be larger. Just like a larger computer is needed to host a VM
The jist of this paper is that it’s not possible to computer a simulation of a universe. Like, there is no sequences of arithmetic or logical operations that could do it, and they’re providing proofs to that effect.
There’s a certain understanding of what is and isn’t decidable by means of Computation (capital C), and it’s fundamental to the formalized systems of logic that define computers.
From what I can glean, they show that some modern theories in physics display logical properties that we know cannot arise from a formalized computational system.
To be fair, I feel like that only means the universe can’t be described by internal computation, not that some hyper-logical model of computation couldn’t exist to drive it all from “above”… It’s fundamental, so not like a higher spatial dimension, but a sort of “conceptual” one we can’t re-articulate? 50% confused and 50% talking out of my ass tbh
The formalized computational systems are an incomplete subset of the capabilities of an actual computation system. Their logic is that such a system would be able to simulate itself, and thus we should see simulations as good as current reality.
That’s a strong supposition they are doing and even then, idk what makes them think that such a simulation won’t ever exist in the history of humanity. They are challenging science fiction, so I can go crazy pills fiction with my theories too.
Doesn’t this assume all universes follow the same physical rules?
If we can’t do it here, then the main point of the simulated universe thought experiment is void.
The argument being roughly that, if we could simulate a universe, and it could do the same, it would likely lead to an infinite chain of universe simulating other universes. In such a case, it would be highly unlikely that we just happened to be the first one in the chain, thus it would be likely we are a simulation in turn.
But it’s equally unlikely that we happen to be the last simulation in an infinite chain. So we’re probably not a simulation
What is the main point of the thought experiment?
If we consider a possibility from all sides, then whether or not we could similate a universe that follows different physics is one of those sides. We don’t have the power to do that, but we can create programs that simulate different physics. Stands to reason that not every universe may follow the same fundamental laws.
I don’t agree that it’s equally unlikely to be the first as the last, either, if the universes branch off. A tree has thousands of leaves and only one trunk.
we have no reason to believe that a universe could be simulated. No proven plausible pathway by which that could be accomplished.
That doesn’t prove it is not possible, you cannot prove a negative. It just means that we have no reason to believe it could be true.
If you find it an interesting thought experiment, then no reason not to think about it, but it should have no baring on anyone’s decision making or assumptions about the world.
