Strange science 😦

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

If it is a simulation, what should I do differently?

Exactly.

Boru

[Alan V]

If reality is a simulation, what is it a simulation of exactly?

[AFTT47]

Phew. Researchers have mathematically proven that the universe cannot be a computer simulation.

Their paper in the Journal of Holography Applications in Physics shows that reality operates on principles beyond computation.

Using Gödel’s incompleteness theorem, they argue that no algorithmic or computational system can fully describe the universe, because some truths, so called "Gödelian truths" require non algorithmic understanding, a form of reasoning that no computer or simulation can reproduce.

Since all simulations are inherently algorithmic, and the fundamental nature of reality is non algorithmic, the researchers conclude that the universe cannot be, and could never be a simulation.

https://news.ok.ubc.ca/2025/10/30/ubco-s...imulation/

I saw that.  It reminded me of Penrose's contention that consciousness can't be algorithmic for the same reason.  Call me skeptical.  It's a one-size-fits-all argument for whatever bollocks mysticism or woo you want to argue.  I think it's bollocks.  It ignores and trammels right past the important caveats about Godel's theorems to deliver a pre-determined conclusion.

Yes, that was the first thing I thought of. I got Roger Penrose's book in Kindle format but couldn't slog my way through it. I'm not qualified to weigh in on his assertions but it didn't pass my smell test. I just noted his claim and the fact that not many of his peers seem to be on board with it.

[AFTT47]

If it is a simulation, what should I do differently?

Exactly.

Boru

Kind of a philosophical inquiry but it does raise the question if there is actually any meaningful difference between a simulated universe and a so-called real one. Real in what respect? The two universes might be different 'under the hood' but is one really any more 'real' than the other?

[Fake Messiah]

The best argument I've heard against the simulated universe is that you would need the energy of an entire universe to simulate a universe. But then again, there are already some games that simulate the entire galaxy, like No Man's Sky, although, I guess, not very precise. We haven't even come to a point where we can precisely simulate an Earth-like planet. GTA games come relatively close to simulating a city.

[Paleophyte]

Since all simulations are inherently algorithmic, and the fundamental nature of reality is non algorithmic, the researchers conclude that the universe cannot be, and could never be a simulation.

This leads me to wonder how our perception does exactly that. Either they're suggesting that there's something "non-algorithmic" about the human brain or they're suggesting that we can't perceive reality. Both options would appear to have problems.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Exactly.

Boru

Kind of a philosophical inquiry but it does raise the question if there is actually any meaningful difference between a simulated universe and a so-called real one. Real in what respect? The two universes might be different 'under the hood' but is one really any more 'real' than the other?

Again, it's a meaningful and important topic, it's just one I can't get excited about (like the free will debate). Living in a simulated Universe would be indistinguishable from living in a non-simulated one, so *shrug*

Boru

[Fake Messiah]

Alien Probes Could Already Lurk in Our Solar System, Study Says

According to new research by Professor Alex Ellery of Carleton University, self-replicating probes may have already visited the Solar System, and some could be operating here right now.

As he recommends in a recent paper, future SETI surveys should be on the lookout for the telltale technosignatures these probes would produce.

Ellery concludes that the activities of interstellar self-replicating probes would follow a basic pattern that can be broken down into the six likely steps.

First, they would target the ubiquitous asteroids and moons in a specific system for their readily accessible raw materials, which are required for universal construction.

Second, from these materials, they would build surveying probes to survey the extrasolar system for resources and life-bearing environments comprehensively.

Third, they would select and secure resource-rich locations to establish bases for self-replication operations. Fourth, they would begin replicating more copies of themselves, including surveyor probes and sentinels.

The fifth step would consist of the long-term and detailed exploration of the extrasolar system using these same probes.

The sixth and final step would see the probes execute specific task instructions, which could include building O'Neill Cylinders for future settlers while (hopefully) not encroaching on potentially life-bearing planets.

Another possible task, and a highly controversial one, would be the seeding of planets with simple or more complex organisms (aka. Directed Panspermia). Based on this breakdown of activities, self-replicating probes would produce technosignatures that future surveys could look for.

Ultimately, Ellery concluded that asteroidal processing would be difficult to distinguish from natural processes and that the Moon would be an ideal base for self-replicating probes to center their manufacturing operations.

Moreover, he suggests that nuclear reactors would likely power these operations, as they are a highly fuel-efficient power source that provides virtually unlimited energy density. This could include Magnox models, a type of gas-cooled reactor that utilizes natural uranium, graphite, and carbon dioxide gas as the heat exchange coolant.

These, he concluded, could be constructed using lunar resources, and that the reactors would have left isotopic ratio signatures of Thorium-232, Neodinium-144, and/or Barium-137.

All of this makes the Moon the ideal place to begin searching for possible indications of associated technosignatures.

https://www.sciencealert.com/alien-probe...study-says

[Aoi Magi]

Why can't reality both be real, and a simulation? I don't see it necessarily being either or

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Why can't reality both be real, and a simulation? I don't see it necessarily being either or

I think it would have to be either/or. If it’s real, it’s not a simulation. If it’s a simulation, it’s not real.

A simulation is, by definition, an imitative representation of reality. The root is the Latin simulato, meaning ‘pretense’ or ‘imitation’.

Boru