My naive intuition is that any assertion like this is hokey. If we did live in a simulation of some kind, there are no expectations that we can measure the physical rules that govern us accurately - either they behave according to some deterministic manifold or there exist gaps where the simulating environment papers over with whatever it wants. It seems like a fundamentally untestable hypothesis and the proposition of the article doesn't do much to push me in the direction of believing that you can come anywhere close to drawing reasonable conclusions about this.
Researchers at the University of British Columbia Okanagan have mathematically proven that the universe cannot be a computer simulation, definitively answering one of science’s most provocative questions using logic and physics.
The research team demonstrated that the fundamental nature of reality operates in a way that no computer could ever simulate, going beyond simply suggesting humans aren’t living in a simulated world to prove something far more profound: the universe is built on a type of understanding that exists beyond the reach of any algorithm.
> General relativity treats spacetime as dynamical and exhibits its breakdown at singularities. This failure is interpreted as evidence that quantum gravity is not a theory formulated {within} spacetime; instead, it must explain the very {emergence} of spacetime from deeper quantum degrees of freedom, thereby resolving singularities.
> Quantum gravity is therefore envisaged as an axiomatic structure, and algorithmic calculations acting on these axioms are expected to generate spacetime. However, Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, Tarski’s undefinability theorem, and Chaitin’s information-theoretic incompleteness establish intrinsic limits on any such algorithmic program. Together, these results imply that a wholly algorithmic "Theory of Everything" is impossible: certain facets of reality will remain computationally undecidable and can be accessed only through non-algorithmic understanding.
> We formalize this by constructing a "Meta-Theory of Everything" grounded in non-algorithmic understanding, showing how it can account for undecidable phenomena and demonstrating that the breakdown of computational descriptions of nature does not entail a breakdown of science. Because any putative simulation of the universe would itself be algorithmic, this framework also implies that the universe cannot be a simulation.
“We have demonstrated that it is impossible to describe all aspects of physical reality using a computational theory of quantum gravity,” says Dr. Faizal. “Therefore, no physically complete and consistent theory of everything can be derived from computation alone."
Sorry to be the hose but this seems like "I'm wet, therefore it's raining"
