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.
All I read is “The computer simulation we’re living in fooled some mathematicians”
Disclaimer: not a physicist, but I am familiar with mathematical logic side of things e.g. incomplete theorem and stuff.
I have to say, terrible paper. Very light on technical details, full of assertions not backed up by arguments. I wouldn’t really take this too seriously. But this is just a letter, maybe the full paper, if they ever publish one, will have more substance? We will see.
Stupid rebuttals for stupid ideas tbh. Simulation hypothesis should never have been taken seriously
It could be a good sci-fi idea though. (Wachowskis et al. 1999)
I am also not a physicist nor a logician, just interested in the subject matter.
full of assertions not backed up by arguments
Can you provide some examples from the paper of assertions that aren’t being backed up by arguments so I might try and look further into it? Thanks!
The central assertion of this paper:
Any viable F_QG must meet four intertwined criteria:
I’d argue is only partly justified. An argument for “Effective axiomatizability” is given, “Arithmetic expressiveness” is more or less self-evident, but the other two I’d say is given without justification.
Also the core concept of F_QG is defined in a very hand-wavy way. I’d like to see a concrete example of an existing theory formalized in the way they proposed in the paper. It’s unclear to me how mathematical derivability from the formal system correspond to how laws of physics apply. Specifically mathematical logic is a discrete process, yet the world described by physics is generally contiguous. (Yes, there are ways for this to make sense, but they didn’t provide anything for me to know how they intended for this to make sense.)
Any viable F_QG must meet four intertwined criteria:
This statement is simply defining the fundamental structure of how a full theory of everything would be composed. A consistent and complete theory must meet all four criteria.
Also the core concept of F_QG is defined in a very hand-wavy way. I’d like to see a concrete example of an existing theory formalized in the way they proposed in the paper.
The above four criteria are how F_QG is defined. The author, in presenting these four criteria, provides two very specific, concrete examples of theories (String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity) while introducing the premise of his argument. He clearly affirms that these theories do meet three of these four criteria but fail on the fourth. If there were an example of a theory that meets all four criteria than that theory would be the theory of everything and the whole issue would be resolved.
It’s unclear to me how mathematical derivability from the formal system correspond to how laws of physics apply. Specifically mathematical logic is a discrete process, yet the world described by physics is generally contiguous.
The rest of the paper explains exactly this. Mainly that the only way to satisfy all four criteria is to include non-algorithmic components that bridge the discreteness of math with the observable continuity of physics. The author goes on to describe several examples where this process can apply in modern physics theory.
I do agree that the author is making a dramatic and bold statement regarding a proof of a theory of everything (that being that the theory of everything can never be computational) which requires heavy scrutiny. However, I am in no way an expert in these fields and so I have accept that the journal that published the proof can provide that scrutiny. It is easy to check on the reliability of that journal as a lay person, and in doing so doesn’t seem to raise any flags about the validity of the arguments the author is presenting.
I should’ve known you weren’t genuinely asking a question… You were just baiting me.
A consistent and complete theory must meet all four criteria.
You are doing what the authors are doing, this itself is an assertion you aren’t backing up.
The above four criteria are how F_QG is defined.
No, these are four criteria the authors assertion F_QG must satisfy. For theories that don’t satisfy all four criteria, you should still be able to at least formalize them into F_QG as proposed by the authors. Yet they didn’t give a concrete example of how a theory may be so formalized.
The rest of the paper explains exactly this.
Uh, what, not? “The rest of the paper” is after they have already reached the point of claiming the Universe can’t be simulated. My objection is way before that, which is pointing out how poorly F_QG is defined.
It is easy to check on the reliability of that journal as a lay person, and in doing so doesn’t seem to raise any flags about the validity of the arguments the author is presenting.
Sure, but knowing what I know I can give this paper a bit more scrutiny than a lay person can (ha ha, look at me, I am very smart /s), and this paper doesn’t convince me in the slightest.
