According to Popular Science, an international team of mathematicians including University of British Columbia quantum researcher Mir Faizal and co-author Lawrence Krauss has published research claiming simulation theory is fundamentally impossible. Their study in the Journal of Holography Applications in Physics combines quantum gravity theories with Kurt Gödel’s 1931 incompleteness theorem to argue that reality requires “non-algorithmic understanding” beyond computational capabilities. The researchers contend that since any simulation must follow programmed rules, it cannot replicate the fundamental non-algorithmic nature of reality described by their quantum gravity framework. This builds on centuries of philosophical debate about reality’s nature while directly challenging modern simulation hypotheses. Not everyone’s convinced though – University of Portsmouth physicist Melvin Vopson calls their conclusion a “profound logical fallacy.”
Sponsored content — provided for informational and promotional purposes.
The Math Behind Reality
Here’s where things get properly mind-bending. The researchers are working from quantum gravity theory, which suggests space and time aren’t actually fundamental. Instead, they emerge from a mathematical foundation of pure information existing in what they call a “Platonic realm.” Basically, the math comes first, and our physical reality emerges from it.
Now here’s the kicker: they argue this mathematical foundation can’t be described solely through computation. That’s where Gödel’s incompleteness theorem comes in – the idea that no collection of algorithms can prove every true fact about numbers. The classic example is “This true statement is not provable.” If you could prove it, it wouldn’t be true. If it’s not provable, it’s technically true but you can’t show evidence. See the problem for computers?
Why Simulation Theory Fails
Faizal’s team makes a compelling case. They argue that since any simulation must be algorithmic – following programmed rules – and reality requires non-algorithmic understanding, the universe can’t be a simulation. It’s like trying to describe color to someone who’s only ever seen black and white. The fundamental nature is different.
But here’s the thing – this entire argument rests on assuming we understand what’s “fundamental” about reality. We’re using our current understanding of physics and mathematics to make claims about what’s possible for beings who might operate on completely different physical laws. Isn’t that a bit like fish trying to understand what life is like for birds?
The Skeptics Push Back
Melvin Vopson isn’t buying it. He’s spent years researching simulated reality and even proposed that gravity itself might prove we’re in a simulation. He calls Faizal’s argument “superficially compelling” but guilty of a “profound category error.”
Vopson and his colleague Javier Moreno make a fascinating counterpoint: what if the simulation operates on a higher order of physics we can’t comprehend? The rules inside the simulation don’t have to match the rules running the simulation. It’s like how video game characters don’t understand the computer hardware running their world. Any mathematical proof derived from our physics is just “calculation of the computational cost using our own rules.”
The Debate Continues
So where does this leave us? Basically right back where we started – wondering if any of this is real. The simulation hypothesis has been around since at least 2011 when other researchers used math to argue we probably ARE in a simulation. Now we have math saying we’re not.
What’s interesting is that both sides are using similar mathematical tools but reaching opposite conclusions. It reminds me that even our most rigorous methods might not be equipped to answer the biggest questions. The debate will likely continue until we either discover definitive proof or… well, until the simulation ends, I suppose.
In the meantime, whether we’re living in base reality or someone’s elaborate computer program, the experience feels plenty real enough. And that might be what actually matters. Just remember that your data might be subject to different rules depending on which reality camp you’re in – check out our terms and conditions and privacy policy either way.
