Physicists Argue the Universe Cannot Be a Computer Simulation — Gödel’s Theorem Challenged Digital Reality

Physicists claim mathematical limits rule out a simulated universe

The idea that we might live inside a computer-generated reality — popularized by films such as The Matrix — has long fascinated scientists and the public. In 2003, philosopher Nick Bostrom argued that if advanced civilizations could create many simulated universes, it might be statistically likely that our world is one of them.

Now, in a paper published in the Journal of Holography Applications in Physics, Mir Faizal (an adjunct professor at the University of British Columbia Okanagan) and collaborators contend that the deepest features of reality cannot be reproduced by any computation. Using mathematical arguments grounded in Kurt Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, they argue some truths require what they call a "non-algorithmic understanding" rather than a step-by-step algorithm that a computer could run.

"It has been suggested that the universe could be simulated," Faizal said. "If such a simulation were possible, the simulated universe could itself give rise to life, which in turn might create its own simulation."

The authors propose that a purely computational description — for example, a computational theory of quantum gravity — cannot capture all aspects of physical reality. They draw on Gödel’s results to argue that any consistent formal system contains true statements that cannot be proved within that system; by analogy, they claim a fully algorithmic account of the universe would be incomplete.

"We have demonstrated that it is impossible to describe all aspects of physical reality using a computational theory of quantum gravity," Faizal said. "Therefore, no physically complete and consistent theory of everything can be derived from computation alone."

Coauthor Lawrence Krauss added that the fundamental laws of physics generate space and time and therefore cannot be fully contained by computations defined inside space and time. "It has long been hoped that a truly fundamental theory of everything could eventually describe all physical phenomena through computations grounded in these laws," he said. "Yet we have demonstrated that this is not possible."

Put succinctly by the authors: because a simulation is inherently algorithmic, and because they argue reality demands non-algorithmic elements, the universe "cannot be, and could never be, a simulation." The paper frames this conclusion as a mathematical and philosophical claim rather than an empirical refutation, and it adds to ongoing debate rather than settling the question definitively.

Context: The simulation hypothesis remains a subject of active philosophical and scientific discussion. The new paper contributes a formal argument invoking incompleteness theorems; how the broader physics and philosophy communities respond will determine its long-term impact.