Gravity as proof we live in a simulation

#1
Magical Realist Offline
I apologize if this has been posted before...

https://theconversation.com/could-gravit...-so-255913

Melvin M. Vopson
Associate Professor of Physics, University of Portsmouth

"We have long taken it for granted that gravity is one of the basic forces of nature – one of the invisible threads that keeps the universe stitched together. But suppose that this is not true. Suppose the law of gravity is simply an echo of something more fundamental: a byproduct of the universe operating under a computer-like code.

That is the premise of my latest research, published in the journal AIP Advances. It suggests that gravity is not a mysterious force that attracts objects towards one another, but the product of an informational law of nature that I call the second law of infodynamics.

It is a notion that seems like science fiction – but one that is based in physics and evidence that the universe appears to be operating suspiciously like a computer simulation.

In digital technologies, right down to the apps in your phone and the world of cyberspace, efficiency is the key. Computers compact and restructure their data all the time to save memory and computer power. Maybe the same is taking place all over the universe?

Information theory, the mathematical study of the quantification, storage and communication of information, may help us understand what’s going on. Originally developed by mathematician Claude Shannon, it has become increasingly popular in physics and is used in a growing range of research areas.

In a 2023 paper, I used information theory to propose my second law of infodynamics.

This stipulates that information “entropy”, or the level of information disorganisation, will have to reduce or stay static within any given closed information system. This is the opposite of the popular second law of thermodynamics, which dictates that physical entropy, or disorder, always increases.

Take a cooling cup of coffee. Energy flows from hot to cold until the temperature of the coffee is the same as the temperature of the room and its energy is minimum – a state called thermal equilibrium. The entropy of the system is a maximum at this point – with all the molecules maximally spread out, having the same energy. What that means is that the spread of energies per molecule in the liquid is reduced.

If one considers the information content of each molecule based on its energy, then at the start, in the hot cup of coffee, the information entropy is maximum and at equilibrium the information entropy is minimum. That’s because almost all molecules are at the same energy level, becoming identical characters in an informational message. So the spread of different energies available is reduced when there’s thermal equilibrium.

But if we consider just location rather than energy, then there’s lots of information disorder when particles are distributed randomly in space – the information required to keep pace with them is considerable. When they consolidate themselves together under gravitational attraction, however, the way planets, stars and galaxies do, the information gets compacted and more manageable.

In simulations, that’s exactly what occurs when a system tries to function more efficiently. So, matter flowing under the influence of gravity need not be a result of a force at all. Perhaps it is a function of the way the universe compacts the information that it has to work with.

Here, space is not continuous and smooth. Space is made up of tiny “cells” of information, similar to pixels in a photo or squares on the screen of a computer game. In each cell is basic information about the universe – where, say, a particle is – and all are gathered together to make the fabric of the universe.

If you place items within this space, the system gets more complex. But when all of those items come together to be one item instead of many, the information is simple again.

The universe, under this view, tends to naturally seek to be in those states of minimal information entropy. The real kicker is that if you do the numbers, the entropic “informational force” created by this tendency toward simplicity is exactly equivalent to Newton’s law of gravitation, as shown in my paper.

This theory builds on earlier studies of “entropic gravity” but goes a step further. In connecting information dynamics with gravity, we are led to the interesting conclusion that the universe could be running on some kind of cosmic software. In an artificial universe, maximum-efficiency rules would be expected. Symmetries would be expected. Compression would be expected.

And law – that is, gravity – would be expected to emerge from these computational rules.

We may not yet have definitive evidence that we live in a simulation. But the deeper we look, the more our universe seems to behave like a computational process."
Reply
#2
C C Offline
(Aug 11, 2025 08:43 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: I apologize if this has been posted before...

https://theconversation.com/could-gravit...-so-255913

[...] The universe, under this view, tends to naturally seek to be in those states of minimal information entropy. The real kicker is that if you do the numbers, the entropic “informational force” created by this tendency toward simplicity is exactly equivalent to Newton’s law of gravitation, as shown in my paper.

This theory builds on earlier studies of “entropic gravity” but goes a step further. In connecting information dynamics with gravity, we are led to the interesting conclusion that the universe could be running on some kind of cosmic software. In an artificial universe, maximum-efficiency rules would be expected. Symmetries would be expected. Compression would be expected.

And law – that is, gravity – would be expected to emerge from these computational rules.

We may not yet have definitive evidence that we live in a simulation. But the deeper we look, the more our universe seems to behave like a computational process."

If contemporary physicists (maybe it's actually more those doubling as philosophers) aren't going to allow the universe or spacetime to be a concrete-existence structure-- only subsist as abstract units and operators -- then such seems to beg the cosmos being generated and regulated by a prior-in-rank level, regardless.

But that "stratum which makes this one possible" doesn't have to be a technological one. Before the dawn of "artificial realities" produced and maintained by computers (Simulacron-3), there was Hindu Maya, and Plato's intelligible/sensible world duality, and then Kant's noumenal/phenomenal upgrade. The latter being a more generic placeholder for a generative level that we're simply unable to vet and comprehend (neither qualitative manifestation nor quantitative description).

But scholars revolving around sci-tech can't handle an epistemologically non-arrogant, empty placeholder like that, for the prior-in-rank stratum. So they fill it in with what they know: A repeat of this natural realm that also yields sophisticated technology.

That, of course, partakes in the recursive fallacy of a reality nested inside a reality, nested inside a reality, ad nauseam. Continually explaining something with a repeat of that something.

Even black hole cosmology is perpetually iterative like that, but at least it's not dependent upon computer simulations. And the BHC scenario has recently been revived: We Live in a Giant Hole in Space, Physicists Confirm (Sabine Hossenfelder). Universe inside a black hole that makes more black holes with universes inside them, yata-yata.

However, if we do create a convincing simulation in the future, then via proving that it is possible... I have to agree with Nick Bostrom that the advancement (along with the mediocrity principle) would increase the odds of our residing in an ancestor simulation (rather than being the first or foundational reality). Because the latter (and other roles for simulations) would become numerous. Maybe more numerous than other conceptions of multiverses (if they were also the case).

The recursive fallacy is not absolute. Repeats are not logically explosive as long as they are eventually limited in occurrence (rather than being truly infinite). And those figurative Matryoshka doll "nestings" have to terminate on something that is completely different from the usual "natural-appearing" worlds that replicate themselves. One that does not need another vertical direction "cause" or "provenance" for itself.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Does gravity cause the collapse of the wavefunction? Magical Realist 4 403 Oct 8, 2025 01:00 AM
Last Post: Syne
  Article New physics-inspired proof probes the borders of disorder C C 0 503 Aug 16, 2025 07:58 PM
Last Post: C C
  Article Is gravity just entropy rising? + Can new chemistry charge EVs in 5 min or less? C C 0 497 Jun 16, 2025 12:42 AM
Last Post: C C
  Research New unified theory of gravity + Dimension 126 contains strangely twisted shapes C C 0 513 May 6, 2025 05:56 PM
Last Post: C C
  Research New theory suggests gravity is not a fundamental force C C 3 700 Apr 23, 2025 02:57 AM
Last Post: confused2
  New strategy in the hunt for quantum gravity C C 0 409 Feb 15, 2025 07:57 PM
Last Post: C C
  Article The “Horgan Surface” and “The Death of Proof” (mathematics) C C 0 493 Jul 15, 2024 05:49 PM
Last Post: C C
  Article We don’t need a quantum gravity: Why we shouldn't quantize spacetime C C 0 513 Mar 12, 2024 06:33 PM
Last Post: C C
  Article Might there be no quantum gravity after all? + Problem yields numbers too big for our C C 0 471 Dec 6, 2023 12:48 AM
Last Post: C C
  Article A bet against quantum gravity C C 1 470 Jul 10, 2023 11:01 PM
Last Post: confused2



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)