A team of physicists led by Mir Faizal at the University of British Columbia has demonstrated that the universe cannot be a computer simulation, according to research published in October 2025[^1].
The key findings show that reality requires non-algorithmic understanding that cannot be simulated computationally. The researchers used mathematical theorems from Gödel, Tarski, and Chaitin to prove that a complete description of reality cannot be achieved through computation alone[^1].
The team proposes that physics needs a "Meta Theory of Everything" (MToE) - a non-algorithmic layer above the algorithmic one to determine truth from outside the mathematical system[^1]. This would help investigate phenomena like the black hole information paradox without violating mathematical rules.
"Any simulation is inherently algorithmic – it must follow programmed rules," said Faizal. "But since the fundamental level of reality is based on non-algorithmic understanding, the universe cannot be, and could never be, a simulation"[^1].
Lawrence Krauss, a co-author of the study, explained: "The fundamental laws of physics cannot exist inside space and time; they create it. This signifies that any simulation, which must be utilized within a computational framework, would never fully express the true universe"[^2].
The research was published in the Journal of Holography Applications in Physics[^1].
[^1]: ScienceAlert - Physicists Just Ruled Out The Universe Being a Simulation
[^2]: The Brighter Side - The universe is not and could never be a simulation, study finds
Disclaimer: an engineering student not a logician. However, one of my recent hyper fixations lead me down the rabbit hole of mathematics specifically to formal logic systems and the languages and semantics of them. So here’s my understanding of the concepts.
TLDR: Undecidable things in physics aren’t capable of being computed by a system based on finite rules and step-by-step processes. This means no algorithm/simulation could be designed to actually run the universe.
A language is comprised of the symbols used in a formal system. A system’s syntax is basically the rules by which you can combine those symbols into valid formulas. While a system’s semantics are what determines the meaning behind those formulas. Axioms are formulas that are “universally valid” meaning they hold true in the system regardless of of the values used within them (think of things the definitions of logical operators like AND and NOT etc)
Gödel’s incompleteness theorems say that any system which is powerful enough to define multiplication is incomplete. This means that you could write a syntactically valid statement which cannot be proven from the axioms of that system even if you were to add more axioms.
Tarski’s undefinability theorem shows that not only can you write statements which cannot be proven true or false, you cannot actually describe the system using itself. Meaning you can’t really define truth unless you do it from outside the formal language you’re using. (I’m still a little fuzzy on this one)
Information-theoretic incompleteness is new to me, but seems to be similar to Gödel’s theorem but with a focus on computation saying that if you have a complex enough system there are functions that won’t be recursively definable. As in you can’t just break it down into smaller parts that can be computed and work upwards to it.
The paper starts by assuming there is a computational formal system which could describe quantum gravity. For this to be the case, the system
Because the language of this system can define arithmetic, Gödel’s theorems apply. This leads to the fact that this system, if it existed, can’t prove that it itself is sound.
I don’t know what it means for the “truth-predicate” of the system to not be defined, but it apparently ties into Chaitan’s work and means that there must exist statements which are undecideable.
Undecidable problems can’t be solved recursively by breaking them into smaller steps first. In other words you can’t build an algorithm that will definitely lead to a yes/no or true/false answer.
All in all this means that no algorithmic theory could actually describe everything. This means you cannot break all of physics down into a finite set of rules that can be used to compute reality. Ergo, we can’t be in a simulation because there are physical phenomena that exist which are impossible to compute.
Thank you for this. My recent hyper fixation has lead me down the rabbit hole of non-algorithmic theories of consciousness with a specific focus on the theory mentioned in this proof. Would I be interpreting this proof correctly in asserting that if consciousness is non-algorithmic, this proof means AGI is impossible?
Bro our hyperfixations are slightly aligned, I was thrown into this rabbit hole because I was once again trying to build a formal symbolic language to describe conscious experience using qualia as the atomic formulae for the system. It’s also been giving me lots of fascinating insight and questions about the nature of thought and experience and philosophy in general.
Anyway to answer your question: yes and no.
If you require that the AGI be built using current architecture that is algorithmic then yes, I think the implication holds.
However, I think neuromorphic hardware is able to bypass this limitation. Continuous simultaneous processes interacting with each other are likely non-algorithmic. This is how our brains work. You can get some pretty discrete waves of thoughts through spiking neurons but the complexity arising from recurrence and the lack of discrete time steps makes me think systems built on complex neuromorphic hardware would not be algorithmic and therefore could also achieve AGI.
Good news: spiking neural nets are a bitch to prototype and we can’t train them fast like we can with ANNs so most “AI” is built on ANNs since we can easily do matrix math.
Tbf, I personally don’t think consciousness is necessarily non-algorithmic but that’s a different debate.
Edit: Oh wait, that means the research only proves that you just can’t simulate the universe on a Turing-machine-esque computer yeah?
As long as there are non-algorithmic parts to it, I think a system of some kind could still be producing our universe. I suppose this does mean that you probably can’t intentionally plan or predict the exact course of the “program” so it’s not really a “simulation” but still that does make me feel slightly disappointed in this research.
This is fun, I appreciate it. I've only made it as far down this rabbit hole to the part of building AGI on current architecture. Had no idea how much deeper this thing goes. This is the reason I was engaged in the first place, thanks for leading me down here.
I'm looking forward to that one when it comes up!