The Decisive Simplification: Why the Algorithmic Model Prevails

November 1, 2025November 1, 2025 ~ 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

Theorem	Domain	Scope
Gödel – incompleteness	Formal systems	Some truths unprovable inside the system
Tarski – undefinability	Formal semantics	No self-contained truth predicate
Chaitin – incompressibility	Algorithmic information	Irreducible 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.

Domain	What Gödel Proves	What Follows for Physics
Formal mathematics	Internal incompleteness	Nothing—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”:

Model	Entities Added	Evidence	Verdict
Algorithmic	none	Consistent with physics, neuroscience, AI	✅
Non-algorithmic	special substrate + Platonic realm + MToE	none	❌

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.

Michael Levin: Anatomical Decision-Making By Cellular Collectives

August 9, 2022August 9, 2022 ~ cafebedouin

Bookmarking. h/t Hacker news.

Typical & Atypical Aesthetic Taste

March 9, 2022March 9, 2022 ~ cafebedouin

“Aesthetic experience seems both regular and idiosyncratic. On one hand, there are powerful regularities in what we tend to find attractive versus unattractive (e.g., beaches versus mud puddles). On the other hand, our tastes also vary dramatically from person to person: what one of us finds beautiful, another might find distasteful. What is the nature of such differences? They may in part be arbitrary—e.g., reflecting specific past judgments (such as liking red towels over blue ones because they were once cheaper). However, they may also in part be systematic—reflecting deeper differences in perception and/or cognition. We assessed the systematicity of aesthetic taste by exploring its typicality for the first time across seeing and hearing. Observers rated the aesthetic appeal of ordinary scenes and objects (e.g., beaches, buildings, and books) and environmental sounds (e.g., doorbells, dripping, and dialtones). We then measured “taste typicality” (separately for each modality) in terms of the similarity between each individual’s aesthetic preferences and the population’s average. The data revealed two primary patterns. First, taste typicality was not arbitrary but rather was correlated to a moderate degree across seeing and hearing: people who have typical taste for images also tend to have typical taste for sounds. Second, taste typicality captured most of the explainable variance in people’s impressions, showing that it is the primary dimension along which aesthetic tastes systematically vary.”
-Yi-Chia Chen. Andrew Chang, et al. “‘Taste typicality’ is a foundational and multi-modal dimension of ordinary aesthetic experience.” Current Biology. March 1, 2022.

If you are an aesthetic weirdo in one dimension, such as with music, you’re probably also going to like weirdo art. Obvious but also interesting. De gustibus non est disputandum.

People Mistake the Internet’s Knowledge For Their Own

December 8, 2021December 7, 2021 ~ cafebedouin ~ 4 Comments

“In the current digital age, people are constantly connected to online information. The present research provides evidence that on-demand access to external information, enabled by the internet and search engines like Google, blurs the boundaries between internal and external knowledge, causing people to believe they could—or did—remember what they actually just found. Using Google to answer general knowledge questions artificially inflates peoples’ confidence in their own ability to remember and process information and leads to erroneously optimistic predictions regarding how much they will know without the internet. When information is at our fingertips, we may mistakenly believe that it originated from inside our heads.”
-Adrian F. Ward, “People mistake the internet’s knowledge for their own.” PNAS. October 26, 2021 118 (43) e2105061118; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2105061118

One person’s rancid garbage is another person’s Golden Corral buffet that they believe they cooked themselves.

Ganzflicker Experience

June 30, 2021June 30, 2021 ~ cafebedouin

“A visual flicker is known to induce “Ganzfeld imagery” (Allefeld et al., 2011; Sumich et al., 2018), a type of visual pseudo-hallucination. The continuous flicker facilitates visual imagery, but does not induce any permanent changes in the brain and does not elicit actual hallucinations. I am interested to learn about the association between any illusions you see, and the vividness of your visual imagery.”
–Ganzflicker Experience

Go to a dark room, put on the white noise, and bring up the image and do F11 to make it full screen. Watch for 10 minutes. I found the experience a bit, uncomfortable, sensory overload and my eyes do not like bright flashes of light. But, I both saw things and had auditory hallucinations. So, weird enough to mention on this blog. Read a fuller article on pseudo-hallucinations, if you are so inclined.

Highlights of Kevin Kelly’s Unsolicited Advice

May 5, 2020May 5, 2020 ~ cafebedouin

“* Being able to listen well is a superpower. While listening to someone you love keep asking them “Is there more?”, until there is no more…
* The more you are interested in others, the more interesting they find you. To be interesting, be interested…
* To make something good, just do it. To make something great, just re-do it, re-do it, re-do it. The secret to making fine things is in remaking them…
* To make mistakes is human. To own your mistakes is divine. Nothing elevates a person higher than quickly admitting and taking personal responsibility for the mistakes you make and then fixing them fairly. If you mess up, fess up. It’s astounding how powerful this ownership is…
* If you are not falling down occasionally, you are just coasting…
* Friends are better than money. Almost anything money can do, friends can do better. In so many ways a friend with a boat is better than owning a boat…
* Hatred is a curse that does not affect the hated. It only poisons the hater. Release a grudge as if it was a poison…
* For every dollar you spend purchasing something substantial, expect to pay a dollar in repairs, maintenance, or disposal by the end of its life…
* Anything real begins with the fiction of what could be. Imagination is therefore the most potent force in the universe, and a skill you can get better at. It’s the one skill in life that benefits from ignoring what everyone else knows…
* When crisis and disaster strike, don’t waste them. No problems, no progress…
* When you get an invitation to do something in the future, ask yourself: would you accept this if it was scheduled for tomorrow? Not too many promises will pass that immediacy filter…
* Rule of 7 in research. You can find out anything if you are willing to go seven levels. If the first source you ask doesn’t know, ask them who you should ask next, and so on down the line. If you are willing to go to the 7th source, you’ll almost always get your answer…
* How to apologize: Quickly, specifically, sincerely.
* When someone is nasty, rude, hateful, or mean with you, pretend they have a disease. That makes it easier to have empathy toward them which can soften the conflict…
* Buying tools: Start by buying the absolute cheapest tools you can find. Upgrade the ones you use a lot. If you wind up using some tool for a job, buy the very best you can afford…
* The universe is conspiring behind your back to make you a success. This will be much easier to do if you embrace this pronoia.”
-Kevin Kelly, “68 Bits of of Unsolicited Advice.” The Technium. April 28, 2020.

Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) – Statistics and Research

March 26, 2020March 24, 2020 ~ cafebedouin

“The purpose of this article on COVID-19 is to aggregate existing research, bring together the relevant data and allow readers to make sense of the published data and early research on the coronavirus outbreak.”
https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus

When you get tired of listening to people that don’t know what they are talking about blather on about epidemics, cures or whatever, take a look at this site for a good overview of the state of the coronavirus data.

The Plain Person’s Guide to Plain Text Social Sciences by Kieran Healy

April 8, 2018December 29, 2019 ~ cafebedouin ~ 1 Comment

The Plain Person’s Guide to Plain Text Social Science is written for graduate students in the social sciences, but useful for any writer. For people not doing sophisticated data analysis, the key suggestions are to use a text editor like Emacs for writing, Markdown for formatting, git—such as on GitLabs—for version control, and a translator program like Pandoc to translate your text file into a variety of formats, such as epub, pdf, doc and so forth. Additionally, he strongly recommends automated backing up of your data with a cloud service. He mentions two standards but if you go that route consider a privacy focused service like SpiderOak, or the free software alternative, NextCloud.

Details

The Plain Person’s Guide to Plain Text Social Science is worth reading for anyone involved with writing, research or data analysis. It introduces the problem of thinking about the tools that we use to do our work and serves as a technical primer for a particular style of writing.Kieran Healy starts with a dichotomy, c.f., Section 1.2. There are two computer revolutions. One revolution is trying to abstract out the technology and present people with an easy, touch interface to accomplish specific tasks. Using your phone to take a picture, send a text message, post to social media, play YouTube videos, etc. are all examples of this type of technology. It’s probably the dominant form of computing now.

The other revolution are the complex computing tools that are being developed that cannot be used via a touch interface. At this point, there is no way to use an open source neural net like Google’s TensorFlow in a way that is going to make sense to the vast majority of people.

As we move to using a keyboard, this tension can be seen in the different types of tools we can use to write, research and do analysis. Microsoft Word, PowerPoint, Excel, Access, etc. were designed to be digital equivalents to their analog predecessors – the typewriter, the overhead projector, the double entry account book or the index file. Of course, the digital equivalents offered additional capabilities, but it was still tied to the model of the business office. The goal for these tools, even as they include PivotTables and other features, is to be relatively easy to learn and use for the average person in an office.

The other computing revolution is bringing tools to the fore that are not tied to these old models of the business office and is combining them in interesting new ways. But, these tools have a difficult learning curve. For example, embedding programming code that can be written into a text analysis to generate calculations when it is typeset is not a feature the average person working in a typical office needs. But, it clearly has some advantages in some contexts, such as for data analysts.

Complexity makes mistakes easier to make. So, it requires a different way of working. We have to be careful to document the calculations we use, track versions from multiple sources, be able to fold changes back into a master document without introducing errors, and so forth. The Office model of handing a “master document” back and forth and the process bottle-necked waiting for individuals making revisions isn’t going to work past a certain minimum baseline level of complexity that we are slowly evolving past.

So, laying out this case, he then suggests various tools to consider: a text browser such as Emacs, Markup for formatting, git for version control, Pandoc for translating text documents into other formats, backup systems, a backup cloud service, etc. All of these tools are equally important to complex writing of any sort, whether it be for writing long works of fiction, research analysis, collaborative writing, and other circumstances we are more likely to find ourselves in, which these more powerful tools help make possible.

Raccoon 22’s Cognition

December 5, 2017December 3, 2017 ~ cafebedouin

“To evaluate the universal effectiveness of the Aesop’s Fable paradigm, we applied this paradigm to a previously untested taxon, the raccoon (Procyon lotor). We first trained captive raccoons to drop stones into a tube of water to retrieve a floating food reward. Next, we presented successful raccoons with objects that differed in the amount of water they displaced to determine whether raccoons could select the most functional option. Raccoons performed differently than corvids and human children did in previous studies of Aesop’s Fable, and we found raccoons to be innovative in many aspects of this task. We suggest that raccoon performance in this paradigm reflected differences in tangential factors, such as behavior, morphology, and testing procedures, rather than cognitive deficiencies…

…Online Resource 5: Video footage from Raccoon 22’s fourth final trial. Here we see that she is able to overturn the entire apparatus by rocking her body backwards while pulling on the rim of the tube. We designed the apparatus to be freestanding so that the raccoons could approach and explore the apparatus from all sides. Thus, we made the base of the apparatus smooth, lacking any raised edges, and heavy (11.3 kg) so that the raccoons would not be able to grip or lift the base. Despite these precautions, Raccoon 22 was able to overturn it and retrieve the reward.”

—Lauren Stanton, et al. “Adaptation of the Aesop’s Fable paradigm for use with raccoons (Procyon lotor): considerations for future application in non-avian and non-primate species.” Animal Cognition. November 2017.

Sometimes, researchers test the cognitive abilities of members of the taxon. Sometimes, members of the taxon test the cognitive abilities of the researchers.