Tag: physics

The Decisive Simplification: Why the Algorithmic Model Prevails

~ cafebedouin

This is a critique of the following paper, which was recently promoted on The University of British Columbia website and is currently being propagated on Twitter.

Consequences of Undecidability in Physics on the Theory of Everything

Mir Faizal, Lawrence M. Krauss, Arshid Shabir, Francesco Marino

General relativity treats spacetime as dynamical and exhibits its breakdown at singularities. This failure is interpreted as evidence that quantum gravity is not a theory formulated within spacetime; instead, it must explain the very emergence of spacetime from deeper quantum degrees of freedom, thereby resolving singularities. Quantum gravity is therefore envisaged as an axiomatic structure, and algorithmic calculations acting on these axioms are expected to generate spacetime. However, Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, Tarski’s undefinability theorem, and Chaitin’s information-theoretic incompleteness establish intrinsic limits on any such algorithmic programme. Together, these results imply that a wholly algorithmic “Theory of Everything” is impossible: certain facets of reality will remain computationally undecidable and can be accessed only through non-algorithmic understanding. We formalize this by constructing a “Meta-Theory of Everything” grounded in non-algorithmic understanding, showing how it can account for undecidable phenomena and demonstrating that the breakdown of computational descriptions of nature does not entail a breakdown of science. Because any putative simulation of the universe would itself be algorithmic, this framework also implies that the universe cannot be a simulation.

Comments:13 pages
Subjects:General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc); History and Philosophy of Physics (physics.hist-ph)
Cite as:arXiv:2507.22950 [gr-qc]
 (or arXiv:2507.22950v1 [gr-qc] for this version)
 https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.22950Focus to learn more
Journal reference:Journal of Holography Applications in Physics 5 (2), 10-21 (2025)

🧩 The Decisive Simplification: Why the Algorithmic Model Prevails

The Single Decisive Question

Has UBCO shown that anything in physical reality is fundamentally non-algorithmic?
Answer: No.

Step 1: What’s Actually Proven

Mathematical domain only

TheoremDomainScope
Gödel – incompletenessFormal systemsSome truths unprovable inside the system
Tarski – undefinabilityFormal semanticsNo self-contained truth predicate
Chaitin – incompressibilityAlgorithmic informationIrreducible limits to formal compression

All describe formal syntax, not physical ontology.

Step 2: What’s Claimed Without Proof

  • ❌ Physical: any process demanding non-algorithmic understanding
  • ❌ Cognitive: human recognition as non-computational
  • ❌ Ontological: a “non-algorithmic substrate” in nature

These are extrapolations—asserted, not demonstrated.

Step 3: The Category Error

Limits on formal provability ≠ limits on physical computability.

DomainWhat Gödel ProvesWhat Follows for Physics
Formal mathematicsInternal incompletenessNothing—category shift

The paper mistakes a theorem about symbols for one about substance.

The Empirical Rebuttal

UBCO’s own example—“This true statement is not provable”—is detectable, classifiable, and interpretable by algorithms.
Recognition can be mechanized.
The feeling of insight ≠ proof of non-algorithmic mechanism.

The Razor’s Edge

Two explanations for “Gödelian insight”:

ModelEntities AddedEvidenceVerdict
AlgorithmicnoneConsistent with physics, neuroscience, AI✅
Non-algorithmicspecial substrate + Platonic realm + MToEnone❌

Occam: prefer the model that multiplies no mysteries.

Final Verdict

UBCO’s argument:

uses algorithmic logic to infer a non-algorithmic world,
replaces one regress with a mystical one,
and violates parsimony by adding an unverifiable entity.

The algorithmic model:

unifies ontology, fits known science, and explains the illusion of “meta-insight” through complexity.

Therefore:

Reality need not include a non-computational substrate.
The simulation hypothesis stands unrefuted.

🧭 Closing Line

If all known processes behave algorithmically, and the only evidence against that is introspective awe, Occam’s Razor cuts cleanly: choose computation.

Stephen Wolfram’s Fundamental Theory of Physics

~ cafebedouin

“We have such a simple rule. Yet applying this rule over and over again produces something that looks really complicated. It’s not what our ordinary intuition tells us should happen. But actually—as I first discovered in the early 1980s—this kind of intrinsic, spontaneous generation of complexity turns out to be completely ubiquitous among simple rules and simple programs. And for example my book A New Kind of Science is about this whole phenomenon and why it’s so important for science and beyond.”

-Stephen Wolfram, “Finally We May Have a Path to the Fundamental Theory of Physics…
and It’s Beautiful.” StephenWolfram.com

Bookmarking for later.

Mind-Bending “Quantum Darwinism” Theory Passes Experimental Tests

~ cafebedouin

“The main idea of quantum Darwinism is that we almost never do any direct measurement on anything,” Zurek told The Foundational Questions Institute in 2008. “[The environment] is like a big advertising billboard, which floats multiple copies of the information about our universe all over the place.”

—Kristen Houser, “Mind-Bending ‘Quantum Darwinism’ Theory Passes Experimental Tests.” Futurism. July 24, 2019

Or, see the Wikipedia page on Quantum Darwinism.

Found: A Quadrillion Ways for String Theory to Make Our Universe

~ cafebedouin

“According to string theory, all particles and fundamental forces arise from the vibrational states of tiny strings. For mathematical consistency, these strings vibrate in 10-dimensional spacetime. And for consistency with our familiar everyday experience of the universe, with three spatial dimensions and the dimension of time, the additional six dimensions are ‘compacted’ so as to be undetectable.

Different compactifications lead to different solutions. In string theory, a “solution” implies a vacuum of spacetime that is governed by Einstein’s theory of gravity coupled to a quantum field theory. Each solution describes a unique universe, with its own set of particles, fundamental forces and other such defining properties.”

—Anil Ananthaswamy, “Found: A Quadrillion Ways for String Theory to Make Our Universe.” Scientific American. March 28, 2018.

Note to self: read Brian Greene’s Elegant Universe.

Information Realism

~ cafebedouin

“…the universe is a mental construct displayed on the screen of perception.”

—Bernardo Kastrup, “Physics Is Pointing Inexorably to Mind.” Scientific American. March 25, 2019.

Said better by Spoon Boy, in The Matrix:

“Do not try and bend the spoon, that’s impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth…there is no spoon. Then you’ll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself.”

Frauchiger-Renner Paradox Clarifies Where Our Views of Reality Go Wrong

~ cafebedouin

“The experiment, designed by Daniela Frauchiger and Renato Renner, of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, involves a set of assumptions that on the face of it seem entirely reasonable. But the experiment leads to contradictions, suggesting that at least one of the assumptions is wrong. The choice of which assumption to give up has implications for our understanding of the quantum world and points to the possibility that quantum mechanics is not a universal theory, and so cannot be applied to complex systems such as humans.”

—Anil Ananthaswamy, “Frauchiger-Renner Paradox Clarifies Where Our Views of Reality Go Wrong.” Quanta Magazine. December 3, 2018.

Probably the clearest explainer you’ll find. The assumptions are that: quantum theory is universal, quantum theory is consistent, and opposite facts cannot both be true. This thought experiment suggests that at least one is false, and depending on which one either leads to positions that quantum theory collapses into classical physics at scale, observer perspective changes results, or the many worlds hypothesis.