No Code, No Cosmos: The Universe Is Not a Computer Simulation
A century-old question may finally have a solution — but perhaps not the one everyone hoped for. In a detailed breakdown of current theory, Mir Faizal and colleagues argue there is no universal 'Theory of Everything' that can be computed to reconcile general relativity with quantum mechanics. At least not an algorithmic one. Their conclusion is stark: 'We have demonstrated that it is impossible to describe all aspects of physical reality using a computational theory of quantum gravity.' Therefore, 'no physically complete and consistent theory of everything can be derived from computation alone. Rather, it requires a non-algorithmic understanding, which is more fundamental than the computational laws of quantum gravity and therefore more fundamental than spacetime itself.' They emphasize that the universe cannot be a simulation because any simulation would be bound by algorithmic rules.
In This Article:
There Is No Algorithmic Theory of Everything
The long-standing puzzle is the clash between the smooth fabric of spacetime and the fuzzy duality of quantum mechanics. Physicists have long sought a mathematical solution—quantum gravity or a Theory of Everything—that would allow physics to move smoothly between general relativity and quantum theory. Faizal and colleagues highlight popular attempts like string theory and loop quantum gravity, which propose that spacetime and quantum fields emerge from information—the 'it from bit' idea attributed to John Wheeler. But the team cautions that 'its' can't come from 'bits.' Drawing on mathematical theorems related to incompleteness and indefinability, they argue that a fully consistent and complete description of reality cannot be achieved through computation alone. Therefore, a non-algorithmic understanding is necessary, beyond algorithmic computation.
A Meta Theory of Everything (MToE): A Non-Algorithmic Layer
To resolve the impasse, the researchers propose a Meta Theory of Everything (MToE): a non-algorithmic layer above computation. This meta-layer would be able to determine what’s true from outside the mathematical system, giving scientists a way to investigate phenomena such as the black hole information paradox without violating mathematical rules. Faizal adds: 'Any simulation is inherently algorithmic—it must follow programmed rules.' But he emphasizes that 'the fundamental level of reality is based on non-algorithmic understanding, so the universe cannot be, and could never be, a simulation.' The idea is to enable exploration of questions beyond the limits of purely algorithmic physics while maintaining scientific rigor.
Gödel, Tarski, Chaitin: The Boundaries of Computation
The theorems of Gödel, Tarski, and Chaitin illuminate the limits of what computation can guarantee. Gödel's incompleteness theorem (1931) shows that any consistent mathematical system contains true statements that cannot be proven within the system. Tarski's undefinability theorem (1933) shows that an arithmetical system cannot define its own truth. Chaitin's incompleteness results (1960s) establish a hard upper limit to how much complexity a formal algorithmic system can describe. Together, these results imply physics cannot be fully computable. To reach a complete Theory of Everything, scientists must go beyond algorithmic computation by introducing a non-algorithmic layer—the MToE.
What This Means for Reality, Science, and the Future
What does this mean for reality and science? The authors argue that the universe is not reducible to computation, and that non-algorithmic insight may be essential for progress. An MToE could help address paradoxes like information loss in black holes without breaking mathematical rules. The research appears in the Journal of Holography Applications in Physics. If taken seriously, this shift could transform how we understand reality, spacetime, and the limits—and future—of scientific explanation.
