Rosa Rubicondior: Refuting Creationism - The Universe Doesn't Need a God to Program It

In the film The Matrix, about a computer-simulated world, the red and blue pills symbolize a choice the hero must make between illusion and the truth of reality.

Photo by ANIRUDH on Unsplash.

UBCO study debunks the idea that the universe is a computer simulation - UBC's Okanagan News

Creationists who want to believe that science and theology are compatible often resort to a pantheistic-style argument: that although the universe clearly operates according to the laws of physics, those laws must have been set by a creator deity of some kind. A modern twist on this theme is the claim that the universe, and everything within it, is in fact a vast computer simulation — and that “God” is the programmer. This is, of course, an argument that challenges science to prove a negative: to demonstrate that the universe *isn’t* a simulation.

What creationists are doing here is trying to prise open a gap — any gap — into which they can insert their god.

Now, four scientists at the University of British Columbia believe they have effectively closed that gap by putting the “simulation hypothesis” to the test against the null hypothesis. One of the them is the renowned atheist physicist Dr Lawrence M. Krauss, author of several books and articles debunking creationist ideas, including A Universe From Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing, which dismantles the notion that there had to be a ‘prime mover’ for the universe to exist.

Background^ The Simulation Hypothesis. The Argument For:
The idea that reality might be a computer simulation was popularised by philosopher Nick Bostrom in 2003. His argument rests on probability: if advanced civilisations eventually develop immense computing power, they could simulate countless universes indistinguishable from their own. Statistically, therefore, it seems more likely that we are living in one of these simulations than in the single “real” universe.

Supporters point to the mathematical nature of physical laws, quantum indeterminacy, and the apparent discreteness of space and energy at the Planck scale as possible signs of an underlying digital framework. Some even suggest that limits such as the speed of light could represent computational constraints.
The Argument Against:
Critics argue that the hypothesis is unfalsifiable — there is no experiment that could definitively prove or disprove it. Moreover, the immense computational resources required to simulate every particle and interaction in the universe would vastly exceed the capacity of any conceivable computer.

Physicist David Deutsch, in The Fabric of Reality, pointed out a fatal physical contradiction: a computer capable of simulating every particle in the universe would need to be larger, more complex, and contain more matter than the universe it was simulating. In other words, it would demand more physical resources than the system it seeks to emulate — a clear impossibility within the laws of physics.

Others note that the simulation idea simply pushes the problem back a step: if our universe is simulated, who or what created the simulator’s universe? This infinite regress offers no real explanatory advantage. Physicists also observe that quantum mechanics and relativity show no trace of the kind of rounding errors, pixelation, or data limits one would expect from a digital simulation.

In short, while the simulation hypothesis is an intriguing philosophical thought experiment, most scientists regard it as metaphysical speculation rather than a testable scientific theory.

Their paper is published in theJournal of Holography Applications in Physics and is explained in a University of British Columbia Okanaga Campus news item:

UBCO study debunks the idea that the universe is a computer simulation
New study uses logic and physics to definitively answer one of science's biggest questions
It’s a plot device beloved by science fiction: our entire universe might be a simulation running on some advanced civilization’s supercomputer.

But new research from UBC Okanagan has mathematically proven this isn’t just unlikely—it’s impossible.

Dr. Mir Faizal, Adjunct Professor with UBC Okanagan’s Irving K. Barber Faculty of Science, and his international colleagues, Drs. Lawrence M. Krauss, Arshid Shabir and Francesco Marino have shown that the fundamental nature of reality operates in a way that no computer could ever simulate.

Their findings, published in the Journal of Holography Applications in Physics, go beyond simply suggesting that we’re not living in a simulated world like The Matrix. They prove something far more profound: the universe is built on a type of understanding that exists beyond the reach of any algorithm.

It has been suggested that the universe could be simulated. If such a simulation were possible, the simulated universe could itself give rise to life, which in turn might create its own simulation. This recursive possibility makes it seem highly unlikely that our universe is the original one, rather than a simulation nested within another simulation. This idea was once thought to lie beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. However, our recent research has demonstrated that it can, in fact, be scientifically addressed.

Professor Mir Faizal, lead author
Irving K. Barber School of Arts and Sciences
University of British Columbia Okanagan,
Kelowna, BC, Canada.

The research hinges on a fascinating property of reality itself. Modern physics has moved far beyond Newton’s tangible “stuff” bouncing around in space. Einstein’s theory of relativity replaced Newtonian mechanics. Quantum mechanics transformed our understanding again. Today’s cutting-edge theory—quantum gravity—suggests that even space and time aren’t fundamental. They emerge from something deeper: pure information.

This information exists in what physicists call a Platonic realm—a mathematical foundation more real than the physical universe we experience. It’s from this realm that space and time themselves emerge.

Here’s where it gets interesting. The team demonstrated that even this information-based foundation cannot fully describe reality using computation alone. They used powerful mathematical theorems—including Gödel’s incompleteness theorem—to prove that a complete and consistent description of everything requires what they call “non-algorithmic understanding.”

Think of it this way. A computer follows recipes, step by step, no matter how complex. But some truths can only be grasped through non-algorithmic understanding—understanding that doesn’t follow from any sequence of logical steps. These “Gödelian truths” are real, yet impossible to prove through computation.

Here’s a basic example using the statement, “This true statement is not provable.” If it were provable, it would be false, making logic inconsistent. If it’s not provable, then it’s true, but that makes any system trying to prove it incomplete. Either way, pure computation fails.

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.

Professor Mir Faizal.

Since the computational rules in the Platonic realm could, in principle, resemble those of a computer simulation, couldn’t that realm itself be simulated?

No, say the researchers. Their work reveals something deeper.

Drawing on mathematical theorems related to incompleteness and indefinability, we demonstrate that a fully consistent and complete description of reality cannot be achieved through computation alone. It requires non-algorithmic understanding, which by definition is beyond algorithmic computation and therefore cannot be simulated. Hence, this universe cannot be a simulation.

Professor Mir Faizal.

Co-author Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss says this research has profound implications.

The fundamental laws of physics cannot be contained within space and time, because they generate them. It has long been hoped, however, that a truly fundamental theory of everything could eventually describe all physical phenomena through computations grounded in these laws. Yet we have demonstrated that this is not possible. A complete and consistent description of reality requires something deeper—a form of understanding known as non-algorithmic understanding.

Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, co-author.
Origin Project Foundation
Phoenix, AZ, USA.

The team’s conclusion is clear and marks an important scientific achievement, says Dr. Faizal.
Any simulation is inherently algorithmic—it must follow programmed rules. But since the fundamental level of reality is based on non-algorithmic understanding, the universe cannot be, and could never be, a simulation.

Professor Mir Faizal.

The simulation hypothesis was long considered untestable, relegated to philosophy and even science fiction, rather than science. This research brings it firmly into the domain of mathematics and physics, and provides a definitive answer.

Publication:
Faizal, Mir; Krauss, Lawrence M; Shabir, Arshid; Marino, Francesco
Consequences of Undecidability in Physics on the Theory of Everything Journal of Holography Applications in Physics (2025) 5(2); 10-21. DOI: 10.22128/jhap.2025.1024.1118

Abstract

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.

Faizal, Mir; Krauss, Lawrence M; Shabir, Arshid; Marino, Francesco
Consequences of Undecidability in Physics on the Theory of Everything Journal of Holography Applications in Physics (2025) 5(2); 10-21. DOI: 10.22128/jhap.2025.1024.1118

Copyright: © [year] The authors.
Published by [publisher]. Open access.
Reprinted under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC BY 4.0)

Summary of the Paper
The authors begin by considering the widely discussed “simulation hypothesis” — the idea that our universe might be the output of some advanced computer, run by a higher-level being or civilisation. But unlike most speculative treatments, their work brings rigorous mathematical and physical arguments to bear, using a mix of quantum-gravity ideas and fundamental theorems of logic (such as Kurt Gödel’s incompleteness theorem) to show that a fully consistent “computational” description of reality is impossible.

In particular, the key claim is that at the deepest level the fabric of reality does not behave like something that can be exhaustively captured by algorithmic computation. The study argues that “non-algorithmic understanding” is required — that is, truths exist which cannot in principle be derived from a finite algorithmic process. Because a computer simulation is, by definition, algorithmic (i.e., it follows a set of programmable rules), the conclusion is that no such simulation can produce the full richness of physical reality.

Any simulation is inherently algorithmic — it must follow programmed rules. But since the fundamental level of reality is based on non-algorithmic understanding, the universe cannot be, and could never be, a simulation.

Creationist 'thinkers' often adopt a variant of the simulation hypothesis: if the universe appears guided by laws, then perhaps there is a “programmer” (i.e., God) who set up those laws and initiated a cosmic simulation. This suggests a tidy way to reconcile theology with science: the universe is physical (and so science can study it), yet it is ultimately the work of a supernatural designer - a handy gap to slip their god into. The UBC study undermines this manoeuvre on several fronts:

First, by showing that the “universe as simulation” idea fails on physical and logical grounds. If it is impossible for reality to be algorithmically simulated, then the notion of a cosmic computer run by a deity collapses — there is no ‘program’ to be written, no machine that runs it. The idea of a “programmer” becomes incoherent in the simulation setting.
Second, the argument removes the gap that creationists rely on. Creationist approaches often hinge on pointing to some “gap” (e.g., why laws exist, how fine-tuning arises, etc.) and then sliding their god into it. The simulation scenario is such a gap: “maybe everything is simulated so a programmer is implied.” But if the simulation hypothesis itself is shown to be impossible, that gap vanishes.
Third, the study reinforces the naturalistic view that physical reality — including space, time, and laws — emerges from more fundamental structures and is not simply a coded environment engineered by a designer or programmer. In effect, it shifts the conceptual foundation from a “magic box” viewpoint (programme → universe) toward a universe whose grounded basis does not leave any persuasive role for a supernatural agent operating as a cosmic programmer.

In short: for those seeking to promote a god-as-programmer narrative, this paper warns that the underlying simulation metaphor is not merely unproven — it is self-contradictory, at least in the framework the authors adopt.

Creationists, ever eager to find new gaps in which to sit their ever-shrinking god, have long relied on philosophical speculation dressed up as science. The “simulation hypothesis” has provided them with a convenient refuge — a modernised god-of-the-gaps argument in which an imagined “programmer” replaces the old-fashioned divine watchmaker. But as this new study from the University of British Columbia demonstrates, that refuge is illusory.

Professor Mir Faizal, Lawrence M. Krause and their colleagues have shown that the idea of a simulated universe collapses under its own logic. A genuine simulation must be algorithmic, yet the physical universe demonstrably isn’t. The fundamental nature of reality, they argue, includes aspects that cannot be reduced to computational rules — meaning no finite machine could ever reproduce it. In effect, they have banished the simulation concept from the realm of testable physics and sent it squarely back in the realm of metaphysics and theology, where unproven assumptions and convenient imaginary entities can be added to the argument at will.

For creationists, this is a major setback. Their attempt to reconcile divine authorship with scientific observation depended on the simulation model being at least conceivable within physics. If, as this paper concludes, no such simulation is possible in principle, then there can be no “supernatural programmer” operating the universe from outside it. The notion is not just unsupported — it’s incoherent.

Once again, science has quietly nailed shut a door that theology was trying to prise open. The universe, it seems, does not run on code; it runs on laws that emerge naturally from its own structure, requiring no author, no overseer, and no cosmic computer.

As usual, we can now expect creationists to indulge in wordplay and misrepresentation, deliberately confusing the descriptive laws of science with the prescriptive and proscriptive laws of human societies and claim the existence of these natural laws implies a law-maker. In fact, the lawmaker is the universe itself.

Advertisement

Amazon