According to Popular Science, an international team of mathematicians including University of British Columbia quantum researcher Mir Faizal and co-author Lawrence Krauss published a study in the Journal of Holography Applications in Physics claiming they’ve mathematically proven simulation theory is fundamentally impossible. Their research combines modern quantum gravity theories with Kurt Gödel’s 1931 incompleteness theorem to argue that reality requires “non-algorithmic understanding” beyond any computer’s capabilities. The team asserts that since any simulation must follow programmed rules, it could never properly simulate a universe where the fundamental level of reality is based on non-computational principles. However, University of Portsmouth physicist Melvin Vopson and colleague Javier Moreno immediately challenged these conclusions, calling them a “profound category error” that assumes simulations must operate under our universe’s physical laws.
Sponsored content — provided for informational and promotional purposes.
The Math Argument
Here’s the thing about this simulation debate – it’s been going on forever. Ancient philosophers, modern physicists, and yes, college students everywhere have wondered if any of this is “real.” But Faizal’s team thinks they’ve finally settled it using some seriously mind-bending math.
Basically, they’re working from the latest quantum gravity theories that suggest even space and time aren’t fundamental. Instead, they emerge from a mathematical foundation of pure information. And this is where Gödel’s incompleteness theorem comes in – that idea from 1931 that no set of algorithms can prove every true statement. The classic example being “This true statement is not provable.” Try wrapping your head around that one.
So if computation can’t handle everything, and reality requires what they call “non-algorithmic understanding,” then no computer could ever properly simulate it. Any simulation has to follow programmed rules, but reality itself doesn’t. Game over, right?
The Skeptics Push Back
But not so fast. Vopson and Moreno aren’t buying it. They call the argument “superficially compelling” but say it makes a fundamental error. Why assume the simulation has to follow our physics? What if the computer running our simulation operates on completely different rules?
Think about it – if we’re in a simulation, the beings running it might not be limited by our speed of light or particle physics. Their reality could operate on a higher order of physics we can’t even comprehend. So using our math to prove their capabilities? That’s like a character in a video game trying to figure out what kind of processor the gaming PC has.
Vopson even suggests gravity itself might be evidence we’re in a simulation. Or that our universe could be “a giant computer that computes itself.” Which honestly sounds even trippier than the simulation theory.
Why This Debate Matters
Look, this isn’t just philosophical navel-gazing. The question of whether reality is computational touches on everything from the foundations of mathematics to the nature of consciousness itself. If Faizal’s team is right, it means there’s something fundamentally non-computable about existence.
But if Vopson and the Information Physics Institute crowd are correct, then maybe everything really is information. That has huge implications for physics, computing, and even what we consider “real.”
The wild part? We’ve been having versions of this debate for centuries. Remember that 2011 article arguing math proves we ARE in a simulation? Yeah, this conversation goes in circles.
So What’s The Verdict?
Honestly? Nobody really knows. Both sides make compelling points. Faizal’s mathematical argument seems solid if you accept its premises. But Vopson’s counterpoint – that we can’t use our physics to judge a potential simulator’s capabilities – feels pretty reasonable too.
What’s interesting is that researchers are still trying to test this empirically. Some scientists are planning actual experiments to look for evidence of simulation. Because at the end of the day, mathematical proofs are great, but experimental evidence would settle things.
So are we living in a simulation? The math says probably not. But the debate? That’s very, very real. And it’s not going away anytime soon. Just remember to read those terms and conditions and privacy policy wherever you are.
