Via Newsweek:
You can stop looking for glitches in the Matrix—it’s finally been proven that our universe is not merely a simulation running on some powerful alien civilization’s supercomputer.
I did not read the original paper. But the claimed solution involves quantum gravity and Kurt Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem. There is more than enough mind twisting physics and logic in there that I am not going to even try to really understand it. That complexity means there might be room enough for an oversight in their proof.
I don’t know that it matters to me one way or the other, but I am vaguely pleased it is less likely our reality is huge computer simulation.
If we were in a giant simulation it may have been programmed so that we couldn’t tell if we were in one. So any “proof” we are not could merely be part of the programming. Ultimately…to paraphrase Cankles the Killer…”what difference does it make”. Whether we are or are not part of a computer simulation ultimately has no effect on our lives. It’s just another theoretical, hypothetical blind alley. Like asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
For any simulation, if the simulation is good enough it will – or should be – impossible to determine from within the simulation that it is a simulation.
So, if it is assumed that we are in a simulation, using the factors of the simulation – because that’s the entire data set we have access to – to demonstrate that we are not in a simulation is impossible, unless errors exist, driven by coding errors, or incomplete coding, hardware failures, dropped cycles, etc. that can be identified as simulation errors (regardless of the complexity, or lack thereof), leaving the question “is X a simulation error or simply coding that is complex beyond our understanding, because our capacity to “understand” is a factor of the simulation.
If, indeed, this is a simulation, one may hope that the coders did it all correctly and that whatever is runnng the sim is was extremely well made and connected to a reliable UPS.
Then again, depending on “capability of understanding” which is limited as a factor of the simulation, were it possible to achieve sufficient “understanding” might it be possible to alter the simulation from inside the simulation?
Which is exactly what we’re seeing that some forms of AI are capable of, so conceptually it’s possible.
Relatedly, Elon Musk has said he’s 99.9999% sure we are in a simulation; that .0001%, however, raises more than enough doubt that it’s still an open question. (He’s also said that “interesting sims will be kept running, so if our sim ever becomes boring – by whatever measure of “boring” might be applied to whomever created and is running the sim – it might get “just turned off.” So, keep it interesting….)
And, Sir Isaac Newton who arguably kicked off modern engineering, physics and applied mathematics with his publishing of The Principia, on Calculus, spent decades of his life attempting to discern the geography of Hell from reading and rereading various bible passages and other obscure sources. That doesn’t take away from his accomplishments or brilliance but it is an example that everyone, even the earth shatteringly intelligent, have limitations. Elon is not trained as a theoretical physicist. It’s a field where intense training in Mathematics and Physics is a prerequisite to begin. So acknowledge Elon for his brilliance but take what he has to say about the nature of the universe with a grain of salt