The concept of our universe as a simulation—a digital construct running on an advanced computer—has long captivated the imaginations of scientists, philosophers, and science fiction enthusiasts alike. From blockbuster films like The Matrix to speculative theories in modern physics, the simulation hypothesis suggests that our reality might be no more than a sophisticated computational artifact. However, groundbreaking new research from the University of British Columbia’s Okanagan campus challenges this notion with a rigorous mathematical foundation, decisively concluding that the universe cannot be a simulation.
Dr. Mir Faizal, an Adjunct Professor at UBC Okanagan’s Irving K. Barber Faculty of Science, collaborates with an international team of physicists—including Drs. Lawrence M. Krauss, Arshid Shabir, and Francesco Marino—to expose fundamental limitations in viewing our universe as a computational simulation. Their findings, published in the Journal of Holography Applications in Physics, utilize sophisticated mathematical frameworks and theorems to demonstrate that the very fabric of reality transcends any algorithmic description or computation that could underpin a simulation scenario.
To appreciate the significance of this work, one must look beyond classical physics. In the evolution of scientific understanding, Newton’s laws gave way to Einstein’s relativity, which redefined space and time from absolute backdrops into interwoven, dynamic entities. Quantum mechanics then revolutionized physics further, introducing probabilistic behaviors and uncertainty at microscopic scales. Today, the frontier of theoretical physics is quantum gravity, a discipline striving to unify relativity and quantum theory. Quantum gravity suggests that space and time themselves are emergent properties, arising from an even more fundamental substrate best described as pure information.
According to this paradigm, the universe emerges from a Platonic realm of mathematical truths—an abstract, timeless domain that undergirds physical existence. This realm isn’t digital in the computational sense; instead, it is a foundation comprising information that doesn’t reduce to any physical or algorithmic system. Dr. Faizal and his colleagues employed deep results from mathematical logic, particularly Gödel’s incompleteness theorem, to analyze whether such a purely informational foundation could be encapsulated by computational means.
Gödel’s incompleteness theorem, a pillar in mathematical logic, asserts that any sufficiently complex formal system cannot be both complete and consistent. This means there exist true propositions within the system that cannot be proven by the system’s own rules. Translating this to physics, the team argues that if the universe is fully algorithmic and computational, certain truths about reality would be inherently unprovable and undecidable—the computational description would invariably be incomplete.
They introduce the concept of “non-algorithmic understanding” to frame this insight. Unlike computers, which process data through deterministic instructions and step-by-step algorithms, non-algorithmic understanding embodies the capacity to recognize truths that cannot be deduced purely by computational procedures. Such understanding operates outside the confines of formal logic and algorithmic hierarchies, revealing a form of grasp or awareness inaccessible to any simulated system.
A striking illustration of this is the Gödelian statement: “This true statement is not provable.” If an algorithm tried to verify this claim computationally, it would enter an infinite loop of undecidability and contradiction. The team’s research extrapolates this logic to physics, demonstrating that the universe itself demands a framework beyond mere computation, beyond any simulation architecture.
Dr. Faizal emphasizes that while the Platonic realm’s information might superficially resemble computational rules, fundamentally it is not computable in a complete and consistent manner. Therefore, even if one could simulate the physical laws we observe within space and time, the simulation could never capture the non-algorithmic layer underlying reality. This revelation dismantles the notion that a simulated universe could harbor truly fundamental constructed reality.
Furthermore, co-author Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss notes that the laws of physics themselves cannot be confined within space and time because they generate those very dimensions. Although it has been a longstanding hope that a “Theory of Everything” could exhaustively describe all phenomena via computational laws, their research shows this ambition is fundamentally flawed. Instead, they argue, such a theory must incorporate non-algorithmic principles—principles that defy algorithmic reduction yet govern the emergence of physical reality.
This insight carries profound philosophical repercussions. For decades, the simulation hypothesis languished outside empirical science, treated more as metaphysical speculation than testable theory. Dr. Faizal’s team has managed to bring this debate firmly into the realm of rigorous mathematics and physics, employing tools from logic and computational theory to definitively rule out the possibility of the universe as a simulation.
Crucially, their argument asserts that any simulation, by necessity, operates algorithmically—governed by code and executable instructions. Since the universe’s foundational layer demands non-algorithmic understanding, it escapes the grasp of any computable simulation framework. This realization insists that the universe’s true nature transcends the digital model and challenges us to rethink our assumptions about reality, consciousness, and the limits of scientific description.
Ultimately, the team’s paper marks a milestone in both theoretical physics and the philosophy of science. It closes the door on narratives envisioning our existence as nested simulations, while opening new paths to explore a reality built not from bits and bytes, but from profound, noncomputable truths. By anchoring their conclusions in mathematical certainty, they advance an understanding of the universe as a domain where computation alone is insufficient, pointing instead toward an intrinsic depth of insight and existence—one that lies beyond any imaginable simulation.
As science continues to unravel the mysteries of the cosmos, this research encourages a humbling reassessment of our place within it. It compels us to confront the possibility that reality operates on principles beyond algorithmic logic and that our awareness may access dimensions of understanding computers are inherently incapable of emulating. In the grand quest to decode the cosmos, the results remind us that some aspects of truth resist complete capture, inviting a richer dialogue between physics, philosophy, and the nature of knowledge itself.
Subject of Research: Not applicable
Article Title: Consequences of Undecidability in Physics on the Theory of Everything
News Publication Date: 21-Oct-2025
Web References:
Journal of Holography Applications in Physics – Article
DOI: 10.22128/jhap.2025.1024.1118
Keywords: Space sciences, Astronomy, Planetary science, History of physics, Astrophysics, Computational physics, Experimental physics, General relativity, Mathematical physics
