A new study applies logic and physics to provide a definitive answer to one of science’s greatest questions.
It’s an idea often explored in science fiction: what if our entire universe is actually a simulation created by an advanced civilization’s supercomputer?
New research from UBC Okanagan suggests that this concept isn’t just improbable: it’s mathematically impossible.
Dr. Mir Faizal, an Adjunct Professor at UBC Okanagan’s Irving K. Barber Faculty of Science, worked with an international team that includes Drs. Lawrence M. Krauss, Arshid Shabir, and Francesco Marino. Together, they have demonstrated that the deepest layers of reality function in a way that fundamentally no computer could ever replicate.
Their study, published in the Journal of Holography Applications in Physics, moves beyond the familiar idea that we might be living in a simulated reality similar to The Matrix. Instead, it presents a more profound conclusion: the universe itself is founded on a kind of understanding that cannot be captured or reproduced by 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.”
From Newton to Quantum Gravity
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.
This information exists in what physicists call a Platonic realm—a mathematical foundation more real than the physical universe we experience. It’s from this realm that space and time themselves emerge.
Here’s where it gets interesting. The team demonstrated that even this information-based foundation cannot fully describe reality using computation alone. They used powerful mathematical theorems—including Gödel’s incompleteness theorem—to prove that a complete and consistent description of everything requires what they call “non-algorithmic understanding.”
Think of it this way. A computer follows recipes, step by step, no matter how complex. But some truths can only be grasped through non-algorithmic understanding—understanding that doesn’t follow from any sequence of logical steps. These “Gödelian truths” are real, yet impossible to prove through computation.
Here’s a basic example using the statement, “This true statement is not provable.” If it were provable, it would be false, making logic inconsistent. If it’s not provable, then it’s true, but that makes any system trying to prove it incomplete. Either way, pure computation fails.
“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.”
Why the Universe Cannot Be Simulated
Since the computational rules in the Platonic realm could, in principle, resemble those of a computer simulation, couldn’t that realm itself be simulated?
No, say the researchers. Their work reveals something deeper.
“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.”
Co-author Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss says this research has profound implications.
“The fundamental laws of physics cannot be contained within space and time, because they generate them. It has long been hoped, however, that a truly fundamental theory of everything could eventually describe all physical phenomena through computations grounded in these laws. Yet we have demonstrated that this is not possible. A complete and consistent description of reality requires something deeper—a form of understanding known as non-algorithmic understanding.”
The team’s conclusion is clear and marks an important scientific achievement, says Dr. Faizal.
“Any simulation is inherently algorithmic—it must follow programmed rules,” he says. “But since the fundamental level of reality is based on non-algorithmic understanding, the universe cannot be, and could never be, a simulation.”
The simulation hypothesis was long considered untestable, relegated to philosophy and even science fiction, rather than science. This research brings it firmly into the domain of mathematics and physics, and provides a definitive answer.
Reference: “Consequences of Undecidability in Physics on the Theory of Everything” by Mir Faizal, Lawrence M Krauss, Arshid Shabir and Francesco Marino, 17 June 2025, Journal of Holography Applications in Physics.
DOI: 10.22128/jhap.2025.1024.1118
Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.
Follow us on Google and Google News.
49 Comments
Trust me bro
You’re right!
The fundamental laws of physics cannot be contained within space and time, because they generate them. WHY? WHY? WHY? When we pursue the ultimate truth of all things, the space in which our bodies and all things exist may itself be the final and deepest puzzle we need to explore. This is not only the pursuit of physics, but also the most magnificent exploration of the origin of the universe by human reason.
Based on the Topological Vortex Theory (TVT), space is an uniformly incompressible physical entity. Space-time vortices are the products of topological phase transitions of the tipping points in space, are the point defects in spacetime. Point defects do not only impact the thermodynamic properties, but are also central to kinetic processes. They create all things and shape the world through spin and self-organization.
In today’s physics, some so-called peer-reviewed journals—including Physical Review Letters, Nature, Science, and others—stubbornly insist on and promote the following:
1. Even though θ and τ particles exhibit differences in experiments, physics can claim they are the same particle. This is science.
2. Even though topological vortices and antivortices have identical structures and opposite rotational directions, physics can define their structures and directions as entirely different. This is science.
3. Even though two sets of cobalt-60 rotate in opposite directions and experiments reveal asymmetry, physics can still define them as mirror images of each other. This is science.
4. Even though vortex structures are ubiquitous—from cosmic accretion disks to particle spins—physics must insist that vortex structures do not exist and require verification. Only the particles that like God, Demonic, or Angelic are the most fundamental structures of the universe. This is science.
5. Even though everything occupies space and maintains its existence in time, physics must still debate and insist on whether space exists and whether time is a figment of the human mind. This is science.
6. Even though space, with its non-stick, incompressible, and isotropic characteristics, provides a solid foundation for the development of physics, physics must still insist that the ideal fluid properties of space do not exist. This is science.
and go on.
Is this the counterintuitive science they widely promote?
What are the shames?
What are the corruption, dirtiness, and ugliness?
Under the topological vortex architecture, it is highly challenging for even two hydrogen atoms or two quarks to be perfectly symmetrical, let alone counter-rotating two sets of cobalt-60. Contemporary physics and so-called peer-reviewed publications (including Physical Review Letters, Science, Nature, etc.) stubbornly believe that two sets of counter rotating cobalt-60 are two mirror images of each other, constructing a more shocking pseudoscientific theoretical framework in the history of science than the “geocentric model”. This pseudo scientific framework and system have seriously hindered scientific progress and social development.
For nearly a century, physics has been manipulated by this pseudo scientific theoretical system and the interest groups behind it, wasting a lot of manpower, funds, and time. A large amount of pseudo scientific research has been conducted, and countless pseudo scientific papers have been published, causing serious negative impacts on scientific and social progress, as well as humanistic development.
Great list but I would not say, “This is science,” but rather, “This is mathematical physics.” Remember complexity science, chaos theory, thermodynamics of non-equilibrium systems, nonlinear dynamical systems theory – all THAT is science too.
VERY GOOD!
Complexity does not necessarily mean that there is no logical and architectural framework to follow. Mathematics is the language and tool that reveals the motion of spacetime, rather than the motion itself. Although the physical form of spacetime vortices is extremely simple, their interaction patterns are highly complex, and we must develop more and richer mathematical languages to describe and understand them.
Please ask researchers to think deeply:
1. What is the basis for your conclusion that what you are observing is a violation of parity -natural laws, rather than a change in symmetry?
2. If a natural law can be violated, can it still be called a natural law?
I may have found a way to final link everything. A (GUT) theory if you will.
I posed a statement ” Science is only relevant within the limits of physical laws governing space and energy. It cannot determine if there is a plain that is not governed by physics.”
The statement is accurate: science is methodologically limited to investigating the natural, physical world and cannot make definitive claims about the existence or non-existence of a “plane” not governed by physics.
So Science cannot answer all questions and basically flawed when dealing with philosopies of existence. It can’t even answer all questions dealing with the physical universe. Much of the math that is used to prove or disprove theory is flawed why because man created it.
Science can prove and disprove empirical statements, and simulation theory is an empirical statement. Simulations are by definition algorithmic. The universe, they found out, isn’t.
Now you could ofcourse say ”But maybe some sort of technology that we don’t understand…” which has as much merit as saying ”We are living in a dream of Teotl. Sure, dreams aren’t made of ‘stuff’, but I’m talking about dreams that we cannot comprehend.”
I posed a statement ” Science is only relevant within the limits of physical laws governing space and energy. It cannot determine if there is a plain that is not governed by physics.”
The statement is accurate: science is methodologically limited to investigating the natural, physical world and cannot make definitive claims about the existence or non-existence of a “plane” not governed by physics.
So Science is basically flawed when dealing with philosopies of existence. It can’t even answer all questions dealing with the physical universe. Much of the math that is used to prove or disprove theory is later found to be flawed so they create a new math to validate their theries.
Its just funny that the study and approach in itself make critical assumptions that could be wrong. Our definition of “simulation” may be rooted in the same mechanics of “reality”.
GOD MADE THE EARTH 🌎 🙏 🙌 ✨️ ♥️ 🪺🐥🐔🪬🔮
Basically. This study of theirs is essentially as unscientific as possible and basically dismisses our ignorance of science in its entirety. We don’t think, nor do we know, so therefore it is impossible. Cogito Ergo Stupid
See the universe for what it is.
I have a theory I’d like share.
This mathematical proof tests the non-algorithmic nature of reality, it does not test the simulated nature. They base on the assumption that simulations must follow algorithms. But that is not the case. A simple example is the dreaming: dreams are a simulation, but we create them in our mind through parallel computation with neural networks, neural pathways’ rhythms, n-dimensional mappings, etc. ; the brain is activated in a way that can make dreams emerge as if they were real, but through a non-algorithmic approach (even though, at its core, it’s an algorithm of a loop of complex execution of a neural network that works stochastically).
The conclusions are based on the idea that the only computation possible is algorithmic, which is just a limit of our current technology, not a truth.
What I was thinking, but expressed infinitely more eloquently than I would have done. Thank you!
Is it me, or is this study assuming that a simulated universe could not be an incorrect simulation? How do we know we’re not in an incorrect or incomplete simulation?
”The conclusions are based on the idea that the only computation possible is algorithmic, which is just a limit of our current technology, not a truth.”
Isn’t this just moving the goalposts? Simulation theory was always about computer simulations of some sort. That was always the core argument. Ofcourse future technology might find things incomprehensible to us. But if you’re assuming beings so high that we cannot comprehend them, why not just say our universe was made by Gods? Why must it be a simulation?
The argumentation has every appearance of an unfalsifiable theory: ”The universe is too big to simulate for even the most advanced computers? How about planet sized computers!” -> ”You refuted the algorithmic nature of reality? Well, then our simulation isn’t algorithimic! How about that!” -> ”Oh you defeated that too? How about something we can’t comprehend! What it is? I don’t know, we can’t comprehend!” How is this any different from dogmatic religion? At some point you just don’t get away by endlessly stating that X doesn’t disprove Y because there might be ways that Y is still true. At some point there just needs to be an argument for the thing you’re proposing. And in the case of simulation theory, there is only a very instable probability claim.
The universe as a whole does not need to simulated, only the inputs to our senses.
Exactly. A simulation/Virtual Reality (VR) only exists in the minds of the players. Think of any immersive VR game you might have played. There is no need to compute and render the contents of the room behind the closed door until my player’s “avatar” calls for that information by opening the door and looking. This is just like the “observer effect” in QM and also explains Wheeler’s “delayed choice quantum eraser”. The physics rule set (and the original set of initial conditions) that defines this “reality” remains a probability distribution of the possibilities (wave function) until a conscious observer calls for the specific data (the “which-way” data), then a random draw is taken and the result is given (particle behavior), by being rendered into the player’s data stream. Check out Tom Campbell’s “My Big TOE (Theory of Everything)” trilogy, or my-big-toe
I think the idea of simulating senses consistently across all beings would just be a subset of all universe simulations. It would still be incorrect or incomplete, which seems to be their claim. To which I would respond, “So what?” Why must a simulation be perfect?
Yes that’s true, but if you assume that sort of simulation, then the entire argument for the simulation falls apart. The argument for the simulation was that when a universe is simulated, this universe will simulate another one, and another one, and so on, to the point that there are more minds within simulations than without, making the probability of us being in one >99%.
However, in the option where we are basically brains in a vat, that entire argument collapses and can’t be used. In that case we need to assess the amount of involuntarily simulated brains in a given universe. Given we only have our universe as a sample, and the prospects of what we will do in the future, this probability is too low to take serious.
What a load of BS!
Physicists only deal with algorithms so therefore it is by definition impossible for a physicist to prove the universe is “ non algorithmic” .
All they can say is that their current mathematical understanding of the universe doesn’t support the idea of a “simulated universe” – whatever the f that is anyway..
Look at how much our understanding of reality has changed in a spec of time( 200 years)
Physicists make absolute d’cks of themselves when they talk in god like language as if anyone in ten thousand years will give a f about whatever their current iteration of “reality” is.
How about a bit of humility around things. Like just using prefacing sentences along the lines of “ our current understanding says this may be true”, for example.
10,000 years from now, scientists will conclude, “Reality is what is, whatever it is.”
This is basic Godel, ask any AI and it will tell.you exact how to tackle it. Only because the problem is non-computational doesn’t mean you can’t use computation to create it, in fact the opposite. The statement is a result of multiple mathematical formulas in a system defined by symbols and numbering. Just because computation can find non-computational problems it doesn’t make it real.
Yeah, but they got a paper out of it.
Ah well; the priests knew the answer all along; blind faith in the intangible non-existent existence.
whatever it is – it is definitly not what we think it is and one thing is for certain – human conciouness “is” a simulation and a specious moment is its creation. There can be no present. There is obvioulsy a logic beyond humans which humans inherit. It made them .
You’ve bested my Spaniard which means you must have studied. And in studying, you must have learned that man is mortal so you would have put the poison as far from yourself as possible, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me!
— one simulation to another
The Princess Bride!
Inconceivable!
whatever it is – it is definitly not what we think it is and one thing is for certain – human conciouness “is” a simulation and a specious moment is its creation. There can be no present. There is obvioulsy a logic beyond humans which humans inherit – an existential logic . It made them .
👍
Not sure who is most ridiculous.
Who thinks we’re living in a simulation or who uses Godel theorem to disprove that. Oh yeah and don’t forget to add all the big worlds like spacetime, quantum gravity and computing. Can’t you leave Plato alone?
Poppycock. First, it’s not sensible to test the simulation theory. The results do not affect our knowledge or actions. Second, if we are simulated, EVERYTHING is simulated: the physics, laws, logic, tools, the definition of “algorithmic,” the “Platonic realm,” … anything that you claim is “proof” to either affirm or refute the hypothesis can be simulated, so you end up just going in circles indefinitely.
To use an ad absurdum, the same could be said about the claim of us living in a painting of a super good painter. This painter is so good that his paintings became alive. The only reason you think this makes no sense is because you live in his painting and to you, as a painting inhabitant, it makes no sense.
If there would not been simulations where would you get proof of not being but then again proof life thats easy experience would be proof but is that cause of simulation that tingles your mind mostly tvese days but i wouldnt know about those who build the world at point of these days causing simulationfailures not by beliefs but gaining truth is nowhere but in self trought others or nature shows calming waters still wash for relaxing and nourishment mostly stimulation to gain
Your brain makes the images you see and think with. Same, by the way, with all the other animals plying their way. But just outside your eyes, it is completely different than – and more than – you have ever considered (with your cartoon thoughts). Ask yourself how it is that you see what you see while your friend next to you sees straight through the exact space your are ‘looking through’ to see other things? The exact same space?
There’s an answer, but you haven’t considered it yet.
I pondered such things in college as a layman science nut and I’m still not sure I have it right. I think it’s all related to the age old question, “If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there, does it make any sound?” My determination back then was that no, it doesn’t make any sound, but it does make sound waves which our brain then interprets as what that “sounds like” in our heads. A katydid in the forest may interpret or process those waves completely differently. I then made the leap that color doesn’t exist either in the “real” world. Again, it is an interpretation of our brains on how light is reflected or absorbed from an object but the object itself isn’t “colored.”
I think that the fascinating condition of synethesia has something to say about all this sense-reality interpretations too.
Then my question became how far does this brain reassembly and interpretation of reality go and how do we see beyond the vale of our own understanding of that reality to know what it really is?
Interesting to read the comments of those desperate to believe.
Comments that are a quick reply to four researchers’ work that originates from a far deeper understanding of the subject than those btl. No doubt not just the four named researchers but all of their colleagues they discussed the work with.
I’m looking forward to seeing theses commenters publishing rebuttal papers.
Do I think the researchers are correct or wrong? I don’t have the intellectual horsepower to begin to make that call. But I look forward to seeing the response from academia to the paper.
The article, if correct, reveals the rearch paper to be a philosophical opinion piece. Expert philosophers are still philosophers. I have a brilliant friend who argues about the specifics that justify his religion, particularly referring to arguments from Augustine. I can’t keep track of his ideas. It doesn’t mean they are not fundamentally just BS from an expert.
No Simulation?
Well one less thing to stop me sleeping tonight then, I’ll rest easy till the next ‘Paper’ which find the proof to the contrary
45 years ago my astronomy instructor demonstrated to the class how it was impossible for a supermassive gas giant planet to be in orbit around its host star about the radius of Mercury. You haven’t convinced me.
Reality can be consciousness in someone but differ from what is experienced in another – referencing beliefs of some and interpretations of others – back to basics unprovable – does God exist it is assumed that upon death you’ll find out!
“Today’s cutting-edge theory—quantum gravity—suggests that even space and time aren’t fundamental. They emerge from something deeper: pure information. This information exists in what physicists call a Platonic realm—a mathematical foundation more real than the physical universe we experience. It’s from this realm that space and time themselves emerge.”
A Platonic realm? And WTF is that other than religion? Mathematical physicists practice religion, not science. Science is about the human experience of measurement. Allow yourself to be extracted from the ongoing airy-fairies of Platonic reified mathematical physics and learn instead about the emerging philosophy of science called “the New Mechanism” (see: Glennan, S.S., (2017), The New Mechanical Philosophy, Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198779711.001.0001. and Cordovil, J.L., Santos, G., Vecchi, D., eds. (2024). New Mechanism: Explanation, Emergence, and Reduction. History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life Sciences, Volume 35, Springer – Creative Commons Open Access book, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-46917-6.).
It might still be a simulation, a “non-algorithmic simulation.”
(adding to the rabbit hole of semantics)
I’m not an expert but the assumption that the computing must be algorithmic seems like a huge asterisk on their conclusion. I don’t know if that would include a goal oriented algorithm that reprograms itself based on probabilities of reaching the desired goals, kind of like a human being or AI. Conceivably the physical laws of the universe could even change with time in a simulated universe. We haven’t seen anything like that, but we haven’t been watching that long.
I’m thinking this so-called research might be somebody’s idea of a joke that made it past the screener. Sounds like they’re just playing word games and throwing in some scientific references. Kind of like the old “what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?” question. I mean, Platonic realm? Really? lol Philosophical BS.
Why is reality dismissively called a “simulation” if it is the product of computation? I have a problem with that!
That suggests reality is being judged by whether or not it was created by either (A) a sentient being that feels intention to execute algorithms or (B) anything else. Is not the universe, or anything that changes in time, a calculator and the output a “simulation”? Unless you believe in true randomness, which has NEVER been proven, any evolving process or system is an algorithm. And if randomness does exist (especially for a known output distribution), can we not also call that a function (like RAN[]) or thus an algorithm. This silly use of semantics is pointless.
Stochastic processes and non-determinism seem to be fundamental properties of our physical existence.
It’s likely I’m missing a lot and making all sorts of errors in logic, but isn’t this randomness and unpredictability fundamentally incompatible with algorithmic generation in the first place?
Well, if it were a simulation, I would have to ask “done by whom?” and “why is it such a crappy one?”
Honestly, this ‘definitive proof’ is very easy to debunk. The problem is they are assuming they have all the variables.
Now, I will outright say that I am not necessarily a proponent of the simulation theory. In fact, I don’t bother thinking about it because it’s one of those things that can’t really be disproven or proven (despite what these scientists seem to believe), but I will defend the fact it can’t be proven or disproven.
In the hypothetical that we are in a simulation, the scientists are assuming they know the operating ‘constraints’ of the system running our universe. That is their mistake. They are judging a system based on *the constraints of our own ‘simulation’*. A physical computer is entirely different from the software that runs on it. It has completely different rules, different limits, different properties. The software running on that computer is beholden to what the computer can run, but any system built *inside* of that software is beholden to the limits of the software. So no, software could not ‘create’ a physical computer out of its own substrate, but that does not prohibit a system from a *different* substrate from existing to run the software.
So basically, any system that would be running our universe would follow fundamentally different rules than the universe itself. We will not prove or disprove the simulation theory by supposing any computer is running the software our own computers would run. For all those scientists know, the ‘proof’ they determined that we aren’t running on a simulation could in fact be the very evidence that we are.
But, you know, good on them for trying.
Editing this because for some reason this site thinks I’m a spam bot.