Their argument is that quantum gravity can encode undecidable statements, and therefore cannot be completely computed. Of course take it with a grain of salt, since it relies on an incomplete and possibly inaccurate characterization of quantum gravity, something we don’t know anything about. Still, a cool idea.
I'm surprised that the simulation hypothesis is even falsifiable. I mean, the guys above are supposed to be in a totally different level of existence from ours, how can we even start to think we can debug the simulation? Wouldn't that be already covered by beings way smarter than us?
“ Here’s a basic example using the statement, “This true statement is not provable.” If it were provable, it would be false, making logic inconsistent. If it’s not provable, then it’s true, but that makes any system trying to prove it incomplete”
Only if you assume the law of the excluded middle, right?
Statements aren’t just true or false, they can also be malformed or undefined.
The article suggests this paper is based on quantum gravity. Which we don't have an accepted theory of. Based on this, I'm not going to read the rest of this clickbait.
12 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 25.6 ms ] threadTheir argument is that quantum gravity can encode undecidable statements, and therefore cannot be completely computed. Of course take it with a grain of salt, since it relies on an incomplete and possibly inaccurate characterization of quantum gravity, something we don’t know anything about. Still, a cool idea.
On the other hand, if it's just me, and everything including you is just simulated for my benefit, it's not too hard.
And again, almost every statement in this paper is wrong, including the main claim
Only if you assume the law of the excluded middle, right?
Statements aren’t just true or false, they can also be malformed or undefined.