Comment on We've got it all worked out

• rikudou@lemmings.world ⁨16⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  What a bunch of nonsense. So, pseudo-scientists repeat after me: you cannot derive rules of the outer universe from the inner universe.

  The only way to “prove” the hypothesis is if an admin sends a message or leaves some other way for us to discover we’re in a simulation, other than that it’s unprovable and undisprovable.

  source

  • Acamon@lemmy.world ⁨12⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Yeah, I think the “simulation hypothesis” is a super pointless take, partly because it is so profoundly unfalsifiable. It’s no more plausible or convincing to me than “the universe exists in God’s mind” or “we are figment within a dream of a dragon”.

    Propenents try to argue things like “if we can create lifelike simulations, then we’d create loads of them, therefore we’re statistically likely to be inside one”. But that’s to draw conclusions about what the “outer” universe is like from features of the simulation. If our reality is within a greater one, I don’t find more evidence for it being a “computer simulation” than for it being inside Tommy Westphall’s snow globe.

    source

    • rikudou@lemmings.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Well, unlike God this at least sounds possible, even though yeah, it’s a pointless discussion, not provable nor unprovable.

      source
  • Dyskolos@lemmy.zip ⁨15⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    While you’re totally right IMHO, I’d argue that the inner universe indeed can prove this. Just within the rules and boundaries of the inner universe. With our given measures and abilities. Which are or might be totally different from the outside.

    source

    • rikudou@lemmings.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      No, we can’t prove we’re in a simulation or outside of it. We can prove that we can’t currently create such a simulation but that doesn’t change anything.

      source

      • Dyskolos@lemmy.zip ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        After re-evaluation, you’re right. We can’t. We could just define the outer walls of what we can know. No matter how hard we’d think out of the box, we can’t measure the box itself. We could create such a simulation. But being more limited beings than our creators, our creations could only be even more limited. Like an LLM. It could asses everything there is to know and calculate a theory around it. Yet it will be confined to OUR specifications and the data we let it consume.

        source
• SmokeyDope@piefed.social ⁨13⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Are you kidding? Gödel proved that decades ago for all of mathematics including theoretical physics. The incompleteness theorem in a nutshell says no axiomatic system can prove everything about itself. There will always be truths of reality that can never be proven or reconciled with fancy maths, or detected with sensors, or discovered by smashing particles into base component fields. Really its a miracle we can know anything at all with mathematical proofs and logical deduction and experiment measurement.

  But something you need to understand is that physicist types do not believe math is real. Even if its mathatically proven we cant know everything in formal axiomatic systems, theoretical physicist will go “but thats just about math, your confusing it with actual physical reality!” . They use math as a convinent tool for modeling and description, but absolutely tantrum at the idea that the description tools themselves are ‘real’ objects .

  To people who work with particles, the idea that abstract concepts like complex numbers or Gödel’s incompleteness theorems are just as “real” as a lepton when it comes to the machinery and operation mechanics of the universe is heresy. It implies nonphysical layers of reality where nonphysical abstractions actually exist, which is the concept scientific determinist hate most. The only real things to a scientific determinist is what can be observed and measured, the rest is invisible unicorns.

  So yes its possible that there is no ToE or GUT because of incompleteness and undecidability, but theres something alluring about the persuit.

  source

  • JustAPenguin@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    I disagree in part with this logic.

    Gödel’s incompleteness theorem says that a system typically cannot prove all truths that come from axioms.of the system, like you said.

    Where I disagree is how this is applied to theoretical physics. Depending on where you draw the line of “everything”, the limits of proof comes down to two things: observation and the language we use to describe it.

    As it stands, for example, gravity is difficult to fit into the standard model. It may be impossible to do so within that system. However, it may work well in an alternate description of the universe. In this case, the core mathematics is the same, but the theories differ. It may be likely that our understanding of the universe is filled with logical holes and fallacy, but that does not mean that the incompleteness theorem says anything regarding the ability to unify physics.

    Mathematically, physics is nothing more than descriptions of observation and expectations. It could very well be that our perception of the universe is fundamentally flawed and, in essence, we can only perceive certain truths that appear correct in our perspective. As such, it isn’t necessarily impossible to formulate a correct theory; it’s just that we are unable to succinctly describe reality.

    More simply, math is just the thing we use to describe the universe. So, it’s likely we can keep “adding new math” as we discover new physics. The hard part is understanding the physical nature of the universe, first.

    Or perhaps the universe truly cannot be described all at one, such that everything is related. As a mathematician, I like to believe that we simply lack the ability to perceive the full reality of, well, “reality”. And as such, we are missing important information that would tie all the loose ends together.

    source

    • SmokeyDope@piefed.social ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Thank you for your thoughtful response! I did my best to cook up a good reply, sorry if its a bit long.

      Your point that we can simply “add new math” to describe new physics is intuitively appealing. However, it rests on a key assumption: that mathematical structures are ontologically separate from physical reality, serving as mere labels we apply to an independent substrate.

      This assumption may be flawed. A compelling body of evidence suggests the universe doesn’t just follow mathematical laws, it appears to instantiate them directly. Quantum mechanics isn’t merely “described by” Hilbert spaces; quantum states are vectors in a Hilbert space. Gauge symmetries aren’t just helpful analogies; they are the actual mechanism by which forces operate. Complex numbers aren’t computational tricks; they are necessary for the probability amplitudes that determine outcomes.

      If mathematical structures are the very medium in which physics operates, and not just our descriptions of it, then limits on formal mathematics become direct limits on what we can know about physics. The escape hatch of “we’ll just use different math” closes, because all sufficiently powerful formal systems hit the same Gödelian wall.

      You suggest that if gravity doesn’t fit the Standard Model, we can find an alternate description. But this misses the deeper issue: symbolic subsystem representation itself has fundamental, inescapable costs. Let’s consider what “adding new math” actually entails:

      1. Discovery: Finding a new formal structure may require finding the right specific complex logical deduction path of proof making which is an often expensive, rare, and unpredictable process. If the required concept has no clear paths from existing truth knowledge it may even require non-algorithmic insight/oracle calls to create new knowledge structure connective paths.
      2. Verification: Proving the new system’s internal consistency may itself be an undecidable problem.
      3. Tractability: Even with the correct equations, they may be computationally unsolvable in practice.
      4. Cognition: The necessary abstractions may exceed the representational capacity of human brains.

      Each layer of abstraction builds on the next (like from circles to spheres to manifolds) also carries an exponential cognitive and computational cost. There is no guarantee that a Theory of Everything resides within the representational capacity of human neurons, or even galaxy-sized quantum computers. The problem isn’t just that we haven’t found the right description; it’s that the right description might be fundamentally inaccessible to finite systems like us.

      You correctly note that our perception may be flawed, allowing us to perceive only certain truths. But this isn’t something we can patch up with better math. it’s a fundamental feature of being an embedded subsystem. Observation, measurement, and description are all information-processing operations that map a high-dimensional reality onto a lower-dimensional representational substrate. You cannot solve a representational capacity problem by switching representations. It’s like trying to fit an encyclopedia into a tweet by changing the font. Its the difference between being and representing, the later will always have serious overhead limitations trying to model the former

      This brings us to the crux of the misunderstanding about Gödel. His theorem doesn’t claim our theories are wrong or fallacious. It states something more profound: within any sufficiently powerful formal system, there are statements that are true but unprovable within its own axioms.

      For physics, this means: even if we discovered the correct unified theory, there would still be true facts about the universe that could not be derived from it. We would need new axioms, creating a new, yet still incomplete, system. This incompleteness isn’t a sign of a broken theory; it’s an intrinsic property of formal knowledge itself.

      An even more formidable barrier is computational irreducibility. Some systems cannot be predicted except by simulating them step-by-step. There is no shortcut. If the universe is computationally irreducible in key aspects, then a practical “Theory of Everything” becomes a phantom. The only way to know the outcome would be to run a universe-scale simulation at universe-speed which is to say, you’ve just rebuilt the universe, not understood it.

      The optimism about perpetually adding new mathematics relies on several unproven assumptions:
      * That every physical phenomenon has a corresponding mathematical structure at a human-accessible level of abstraction.
      * That humans will continue to produce the rare, non-algorithmic insights needed to discover them.
      * That the computational cost of these structures remains tractable.
      * That the resulting framework wouldn’t collapse under its own complexity, ceasing to be “unified” in any meaningful sense.

      I am not arguing that a ToE is impossible or that the pursuit is futile. We can, and should, develop better approximations and unify more phenomena. But the dream of a final, complete, and provable set of equations that explains everything, requires no further input, and contains no unprovable truths, runs headlong into a fundamental barrier.

      source