We simulate weather systems all the time, even though the systems are fundamentally chaotic and it’s impossible to forecast accurately.
Weather simulations are approximations. It’s not an exact replication of the universe.
Comment on Mathematics disproves Matrix theory, says reality isn’t simulation
henfredemars@infosec.pub 1 day ago
Dr. Faizal says the same limitation applies to physics. “We have demonstrated that it is impossible to describe all aspects of physical reality using a computational theory of quantum gravity,” he explains.
“Therefore, no physically complete and consistent theory of everything can be derived from computation alone.”
Your argument is bad and you should feel bad.
Impossible to describe does not mean that it’s not computable, and impossible is an incredibly strong criterion that sounds quite inaccurate to me.
This seems like a huge leap to conclude that just because some aspects of our understanding seem like we wouldn’t be able to fully describe them somehow means that the universe can’t be simulated.
magic_lobster_party@fedia.io 1 day ago
Valmond@lemmy.world 1 day ago
But who sait it must be a perfect match?
I mean they can argue that we can’t simulate correctly the universe (just check kaos theory) but that doesn’t mean we cant simulate a universe. Even a universe that looks feels like ours.
magic_lobster_party@fedia.io 1 day ago
The paper makes the argument that the universe we live in is mathematically uncomputable. No algorithm can describe it. There’s no mathematical formula we can use to compute the universe as it is.
If this is the case, then we don’t live inside a computer. Something more than pure computation is required.
Now their argument is that quantum gravity is the thing that makes the universe uncomputable. I’m not sure how valid this part of their argument is.
AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 23 hours ago
If this is the case, then we don’t live inside a computer. Something more than pure computation is required.
SO many assumptions in that statement
henfredemars@infosec.pub 1 day ago
Can the universe not also approximate? Why must it be an exact result whenever a rule is applied?
magic_lobster_party@fedia.io 1 day ago
Then it’s not an approximation - it’s the reality. The question is whether all things the universe does can also a computer do in theory. If one thing about the universe is uncomputable, then the entire universe is uncomputable.
The paper suggests this thing is quantum gravity. I have my doubts about it, but I’m in no position to refute the paper.
phutatorius@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
We simulate weather systems all the time, even though the systems are fundamentally chaotic and it’s impossible to forecast accurately.
The amount of computer power used to run those simulations is immense, and even then, the predictive capacity of those models starts degrading rapidly around 7 to 10 days ahead. There’s some amazing science that goes into those models, but the results are hard-won. And what we know about more energetic systems (say, the magnetohydrodynamics of the sun) is far less comprehensive.
And be careful with that “fundamentally chaotic” assertion: there are degrees of how chaotic a system is, and some aspects of a system can be more deterministic than others.
squaresinger@lemmy.world 1 day ago
What bothers me most is that they equate a model with reality.
Quantum gravity theory is our current working model that we use to describe our observations. It’s not reality itself, and no scientist worth their money would claim that it is, because if it was, physics would be solved and it isn’t.
That’s how science works: We have observations, we build models to describe them, then we have more observations that don’t fit the old models, so we build newer models that also describe the new observations. Since we aren’t omnicient, there’s always something we can’t observe (yet) and what we can’t observe we also can’t describe.
This, in fact, would fit quite well to an imperfect simulation that doesn’t perfectly follow all the rules we made up when observing.