Slapping Down The Simulation

I have written previously on what I consider to be the extremely dumb "simulation argument," the contention that the universe we live in could be some sort of computer simulation akin to the world of the film The Matrix. The argument itself, originally formalized by philosopher Nick Bostrum suffers from a basic mathematical flaw that for some reason never gets brought up - classic "gambler's fallacy." Bostrum's argument is essentially that if it is possible to build a true simulated reality, it is likely that a huge number of them would be created. Since that huge number is bigger than one, the number of "real realities," it is more likely than not that we live in a simulated universe.

This is pretty much the same thing as saying that if you do a hundred coin flips and get sixty heads and forty tails, it is more likely that the next flip will be heads. But this can easily be shown to be false with a simple experiment. Each flip is independent, just like each member of the collection of different realities would be. If this were not true, you could use something like Bostrum's math to, say, win a bunch of money at a roulette wheel. If anybody out there can experimentally show this is possible, I'll listen to what they have to say. Otherwise I completely fail to understand how anyone can fall for "the simulation" if they know anything at all about probability.

But according to this article, the probabilitic issues are not even the worst of it. According to a new mathematical proof, it is actually impossible to simulate the physical universe by computational means. It shows that the answer to the first question in Bostrum's argument, whether or not it is possible to create a simulated universe inside a computer, is no. The laws of physics cannot simply be generated by a computer algorithm, no matter how complex that algorithm is.

Dr. Mir Faizal, Adjunct Professor with UBC Okanagan's Irving K. Barber Faculty of Science, and his international colleagues, Drs. Lawrence M. Krauss, Arshid Shabir and Francesco Marino have shown that the fundamental nature of reality operates in a way that no computer could ever simulate. 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.

I don't find this even a little surprising, as I have never been convinced at all by the simulation argument and its poor mathematical reasoning. I should also point out that Bostrum uses the same sort of "large-set/small-set" reasoning to support "Long-Termism," which in practice breaks down to the idea that if we kick poor people hard enough, the kicking will somehow advance our civilization - rather than the far more logical idea that if we empower everyone, the pool of human potential will grow larger and create more opportunities for the growth of society. Many billionaires, though, seem to love Long-Termism, likely because it justifies all the poor-kicking they do on a daily basis. But I digress.

"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.

Beyond the mathematical silliness, I never have even understood the appeal of the simulated universe idea. Let's say for the sake of argument that it is true and we live in a simulated universe that is fundamentally identical to the "real world" - which it would in effect be by definition, since it would be the universe that we inhabit and the scientific principles derived within that universe would be all we know. So what?

Even if there was a "red pill" that somehow opened our eyes to the truth, we're not going to wake up in a vat or something and be able to escape. We would be simulated just like everything else in our simulated universe. There is literally no different set of actions we could take besides the ones we are taking, whether we knew "the truth" or not. So the whole thing seems really pointless to me.

The original concept behind The Matrix was to create a universe in which the characters could essentially have superpowers because they were plugged into a giant video game. But we can do magick in the real world too. It's not as dramatic as advanced wire-fu or stopping a hail of bullets with the wave of a hand. Still, the effects can be impressive, dramatic, and meaningful nonetheless and vastly improve our lives.