Quantum True Randomness Implies Reality Can’t Be a Computer Simulation

Some authors (like Nick Bostrom or David Chalmers) seriously postulate that we are the result of a computer simulation run by some external, advanced alien species.

I claim they are not imagining this seriously. If they were, they would end up in a psychiatric ward, catatonic with terror.

If you want to experience this specific terror for yourself, simply read Philip K. Dick’s 1953 short story, “The Trouble with Bubbles.”

As a philosophical concept, the simulation hypothesis relies—as always—on the lazy trick of idealism. Trapped in the immanent, unconscious, and defective [Nature-Human] natural framework of spontaneous unaware thinking (that include Philosophy), “Thought” appears as something fundamentally mysterious because it cannot intimately relate to “Nature” (i.e., matter).

To totalize and unify Thought and Nature, these thinkers resort to the exact same lazy, automatic, and intellectually impoverished trick used by supernatural religions: they invert Reality. They claim that some characteristic of Thought is actually the initial, fundamental cause of Nature.

In this specific case, they project the ultimate stage of Thought—computing, the mathematical concept of the Universal Turing Machine—onto the origin of the cosmos.

Fundamentally, this is nothing more than low-Q (low quality as in Hifi) metaphysics. Instead of doing the real job—doing actual metaphysics, which requires diving into the Void and facing Terror—they immediately cling to the first easy idea available: raw idealism.

They would rather prefer the obviously absurd solution of inverting reality than face the Terror of the Void.

Fortunately, Reality operates with far more coherence than these lazy, low-Q thought experiments :

The title of this post is self-explanatory -if you think about it for a second- but let us spell it out: true randomness cannot, by definition, be coded.

If it is coded, it can be calculated, making it strictly pseudo-random. Because quantum randomness is proven to be true randomness by multiple quantum phenomena (Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, non-locality, wave packet reduction, Bell’s inequality violations, and logically by the intrinsic probabilistic nature of the quantum wave function), our reality cannot possibly be a computer simulation.

In particular, the experimentally proven violation of Bell’s inequalities directly proves that there cannot exist any hidden determinism—such as a background computation—behind quantum phenomena.

One could still desperately argue that our alien simulators could “pump” non-coded true randomness using artifacts (like our quantum random number generators) and inject it into the simulation.

But doing so would immediately grant the simulation access to the true, non-coded essence of base reality, at which point the premise of a fully simulated, closed reality collapses.

Actually, quantum mechanics gives us a direct view of the non-codable, deepest random nature of our reality through a continuous logic that is perfectly consistent with the rest of physics. The idea of some external code run by an alien civilization is functionally equivalent to a supernatural, religious explanation of reality, and must be unceremoniously erased by Occam’s razor.

Lucky you! I faced the Void for you a long time ago. You will find a real, working metaphysical system here, but don’t bother clicking!

I know fore sure you won’t be interested, because you are not here for actual ideas. You are here for a substitute religion; you just want to rub your mind under some alpha-dominant perspective, and my system doesn’t provide that comfort at all… because it simply works.

https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/breaking-the-nature-human-bi-categorical-framework-of-philosophy/155

I thought the thing was that quantum randomness is truly indeterminate to us, inside the simulation but it could totally be something pseudo-random from the point of view of the computer simulating us.

I believe Bell’s inequalities prove there cannot be any hidden determinism in our universe but there could be hidden determinism in the universe of the computer simulating us. So the aliens don’t need to “pump” true randomness, pseudo-randomness would be enough and look like true randomness from our point of view.

1 Like

You cannot “simulate” true randomness. This is not a technological limitation of our current computers; it is a hard mathematical absolute bound by Kolmogorov complexity.

By definition, any sequence generated by a computer program (no matter how advanced the alien hardware is) is algorithmic. Therefore, it is strictly pseudo-random and compressible into a shorter generative rule.

True quantum randomness, however, is mathematically incompressible . There is no algorithm, no formula, and no “code” that can calculate the exact outcome of a true quantum event before it happens. The only “program” capable of outputting a truly random sequence is the sequence itself.

If your hypothetical alien computer is simulating the true, incompressible randomness of every quantum wave-function collapse in our universe, it cannot use an algorithm. It must literally generate and store the infinite raw data for every single quantum event, frame by Planck-frame.

To do this, the computer would have to be physically larger, denser, and more complex than the universe it is supposedly simulating. At that point, the entire concept of “simulation” (which implies computation, abstraction, and compression) breaks down logically. You are no longer talking about a simulation; you are just describing base physical Reality.

Edit : and obviously if you claim Alien could have an “unknown to us” algorithm simulating “our” randomness : this a functional equivalent of: “But if God created Reality?”

It’s not certain that we have this “true quantum randomness.” Actual quantum randomness has not been proven to be mathematically incompressible. So the simulation theorist can just reject this assumption.

Is this how simulation is understood by simulation theorists?

as I explained, quantum mechanic is the logical theory and experimental proof of true randomness (as the deepest essence of Reality) and as I answered a “simulation” is a computation : if it is equal to the result it is not a computation : it is the result and not a simulation !!!

edit : and the nature-human epistemological explication I gave 100% explain the root cause of this insane idea of a simulated universe: Occam’s razor rules here, zero need to go further.

It doesn’t prove it as far as I know, do you have the proof that quantum randomness is mathematically incompressible?

The fundamental error in your thinking is that a computer program doesn’t have to simulate randomness, it only has to simulate the appearance of randomness. It doesn’t have to show the whole universe, it only has to show that small portion I happen to be paying attention to right now. Since I am not a physicist, all it has to do is create the books and philosophy posts I’ve read.

this is exactly the God created Reality argument : you invoke non-existence ! As I said Bell’s theorem is the logical and experimental proof that there exist no local hidden variable and that include computation. So the computation hypothesis must be non-locally meaning outside the Universe itself so equal to the sum of all local random collapse of the wave function. This discussion is pain in the ass it’s incredible ! How do you do to not understand that our most advance knowledge quantum mechanics is equal to true randomness and invoking something else is like invoking God because there is nothing else !

and my main purpose was epistemological : the goal here is to show how you have very bad metaphysical idea when thinking from the defective [nature-human] framework. This is positive reasonning, not God-like absence reasonning ! What a pain !!!

Edit : if you like the gratuitous simulation hypothesis go read the Dick’s novel : you will be glad of my argument !

simulate true randomness has no meaning, as I clearly explained this “simulation” is equal to the “simulated” thing : it is not a simulation. And true randomness is proven by quantum mecanics. “small portion” has no meaning : everywhere science looks at, there is no exception to quantum mechanic ! What a pain having to repeat the same argumenent and say such truism on the main philosophy forum on internet !!!

You haven’t responded to the substance of my comment at all. Tossing out insults is not philosophy.

That’s weird, I didn’t make any argument in the previous post.

Yes, Bell’s theorem shows that there exist no local hidden variable. But this isn’t a problem for the simulation theorist. Bell’s theorem only shows that there is no hidden variable in our universe but again, you can have those variables outside of our universe if it’s a simulation.

It’s not the same thing as saying that the randomness is incompressible. Bell’s theorem doesn’t prove that at all. In fact, we cannot mathematically prove that quantum randomness is incompressible.

I’m depressed ! QM says that the at the heart of reality is randomness, that the wave function collapse randomly into macroscopic objects.

Then you said “no it COULD be non-random and simulated by a computer”

How can’t you see this is a God-existence-like argument : some non-existent impossible to prove arbitrary causality explaining reality ! It is the famous : “there is a tea spoon orbiting around the sun”. Such a pain having to say that here on TPS arggh!!!

It’s randomness to us, yes. Also aren’t there deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics?

But I am not making any argument about whether we are in a simulation or not. I am denying the claim that quantum mechanics logically proves that we aren’t in a simulation. You could say that there is no reason to believe we are in a simulation; that’s fine. I am not even saying simulation theory is a credible one. Just that it’s not one you actually disprove with physics.

no no no ! “random to us” = “not random to God” (or aliens). And I repeat QM is radom based and random = no code ! every else is tea spoon argument.

and again : compare your god-existence-like type of explanation of the simulation hypothesis to mine witch is at 180° : epistemological, i.e. : realist, positive, because human-based, based on a specific nature-human thinking context: no tea spoon here.

yes, it’s unfalsifiable, I am not sure why you think we disagree. I object to the claim that you can prove it false with QM.

again : because randomness = no code. No code is a definition of randomness. Simulated randomness is not randomness, it is fake randomness. QM does not say “we found fake coded randomness” it say “we found true randomness”. So saying QM randomness COULD be fake randomness is tea spoon argument. Capito now ?

QM finds potentially true randomness and the simulation theorist will say that this potentially true randomness isn’t true randomness. But QM cannot say whether this potentially true randomness is true randomness.

You still haven’t responded to my comment.