Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 89 references

Consequences of Undecidability in Physics on the Theory of Everything

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A wholly algorithmic theory of everything is impossible, and our universe is therefore not a simulation.

desk verdict A well-written speculative essay that surveys undecidability results but fails to bridge formal undecidability to non-computable physical content; the no-simulation conclusion rests on an unproven premise. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.22950 v1 pith:BWTV4WXL submitted 2025-07-29 gr-qc physics.hist-ph

Mir Faizal , Lawrence M. Krauss , Arshid Shabir , Francesco Marino This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcphysics.hist-ph
keywords GödelincompletenesstheoremsTarskiundefinabilitytheoremChaitininformation-theoreticquantumgravitytheoryofeverythingnon-algorithmicunderstandingsimulationhypothesisundecidabilityinphysics
topics Quantum Gravity
open problems Quantum Gravity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Quantum gravity programs typically assume that spacetime emerges from a deeper formal system and that algorithmic computation on that system's axioms can generate the physics of the universe. This paper argues that any such finite, consistent, arithmetically expressive formal system falls under Gödel's, Tarski's, and Chaitin's limit theorems, so a wholly algorithmic theory of everything cannot be complete. It proposes a Meta-Theory of Everything that adds an external truth predicate and non-effective inference rules to the computational core, allowing undecidable physical truths to be certified without abandoning science. Because any simulation of the universe would itself be an algorithmic process, the paper concludes that the simulation hypothesis is not merely implausible but impossible.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the contrast between the computational core $\mathcal{F}_{\mathrm{QG}}$—a finite, consistent, arithmetically expressive first-order theory whose theorems are produced by algorithmic rules—and the enlarged Meta-Theory of Everything $\mathcal{M}_{\mathrm{ToE}}$, which adds an external truth predicate $T(x)$ and a non-effective inference mechanism $R_{\mathrm{nonalg}}$ to certify truths beyond algorithmic reach. The engine of the argument is the Gödel–Tarski–Chaitin triad: Gödel's theorems produce true-but-unprovable sentences and block self-consistency proofs, Tarski's theorem blocks an internal definition of truth, and Chaitin's theorem caps algorithmic derivability by Kolmogorov complexity. The external truth predicate is defined by four axioms—soundness, reflective completeness, modus-ponens closure, and trans-algorithmicity—that let it certify Gödel sentences and physically undecidable properties while staying consistent with the computational core.

What would settle it

A single physically relevant quantum-gravity model that is finitely axiomatized, arithmetically expressive, consistent, and decides every empirically meaningful statement—while also proving its own consistency—would refute the claim that undecidability is unavoidable; more concretely, one could check whether the spectral-gap problem for the specific Hamiltonians used in holographic duality is decidable, since a decidable sector would weaken the blanket conclusion that Planck-scale physics is Chaitin-inaccessible.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that any viable quantum-gravity theory can be written as a formal system $\mathcal{F}_{\mathrm{QG}}=(\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{QG}},\Sigma_{\mathrm{QG}},R_{\mathrm{alg}})$ with finitely many axioms, arithmetic expressiveness, and algorithmic inference rules, from which spacetime emerges as a theorem-level construct. On that premise, Gödel's incompleteness theorems imply the existence of true but unprovable physical statements and the unprovability of the system's own consistency; Tarski's undefinability theorem forbids an internal truth predicate; and Chaitin's information-theoretic incompleteness places a Kolmogorov-complexity ceiling $K_{\mathcal{F}_{\mathrm{QG}}}$ on what algorithmic deduction can establish. The paper's proposed remedy is a Meta-Theory of Everything $\mathcal{M}_{\mathrm{ToE}}$ that adjoins an external truth predicate $T(x)$ and non-effective inference rules, certified by soundness, reflective completeness, modus-ponens closure, and trans-algorithmicity. In this setting, undecidable physical facts—black-hole microstates, thermalization, spectral gaps, renormalization-group flows—can be certified as true without being algorithmically derived. The paper concludes that genuine physical reality embeds non-computational content, and because any simulation of the universe would be algorithmic, the universe is definitely not a simulation.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that any simulation of the universe would itself be an algorithmic, rule-following computation; if a simulation could use non-algorithmic physical resources instead, the conclusion that our universe is not a simulation would collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A finite, consistent, arithmetically expressive formal system for quantum gravity cannot generate all physical truths, so a wholly algorithmic 'Theory of Everything' is impossible.
  • A complete theory of everything must include non-algorithmic understanding, and the breakdown of computational descriptions need not be a breakdown of science.
  • Specific open problems—black-hole microstates, thermalization, spectral gaps, and renormalization-group flows—lie beyond algorithmic derivation and require certification by an external truth predicate.
  • Because any simulation of the universe is itself algorithmic, no simulation can reproduce the full content of physical reality, so the universe is definitely not a simulation.
  • The Gödel–Tarski–Chaitin limits apply only to candidate quantum-gravity theories that are finitely axiomatized and arithmetically expressive, which the paper argues all major candidates are.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the paper is right, undecidability results in physics become potential empirical witnesses for a non-algorithmic layer of nature: uncomputable phase diagrams or thermalization decisions would be laboratory-scale signatures of the truth predicate.
  • A natural extension would be to search for observables that are provably impossible to output by any finite algorithm yet are stable and reproducible in experiments; their existence would instantiate the paper's external truth predicate in concrete physical data.
  • The simulation conclusion is exactly as strong as the assumption that simulations are algorithmic; a hypothetical simulation running on the universe's own non-computational physics would escape the argument rather than refute it.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper argues that any quantum-gravity 'theory of everything' that is an algorithmic formal system F_QG = (L_QG, Σ_QG, R_alg) is necessarily incomplete, because Gödel's incompleteness theorems, Tarski's undefinability theorem, and Chaitin's information-theoretic incompleteness apply to it. It then introduces a 'Meta-Theory of Everything' MToE = (L_QG ∪ {T}, Σ_QG ∪ Σ_T, R_alg ∪ R_nonalg), where T is an external truth predicate with non-recursively-enumerable axioms, and claims that this predicate is actualized in nature, resolving such problems as black-hole microstates and thermalization. From this it concludes that any simulation of the universe would be algorithmic and therefore cannot reproduce the non-algorithmic content of reality, so the universe is 'definitely not a simulation.' The paper's formal claims are not supported by a precise axiomatization of quantum gravity, and the step from undecidability of decision problems to non-computable physical properties is the load-bearing but unproved bridge.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the paper would have profound implications for the limits of physical theory and for the simulation hypothesis. The paper deserves credit for collecting recent undecidability results in physics, including spectral-gap undecidability, uncomputable renormalization-group flows, undecidable thermalization, and uncomputable phase diagrams, and for clearly distinguishing recursive derivability from semantic truth. However, the manuscript offers no empirical prediction, no concrete model, and no machine-checked derivation; its central inference depends on a stipulated oracle and on an unproved identification of Gödel sentences with physical facts. The cited undecidability results are decision problems over families of systems, not non-computable properties of a fixed physical universe. The no-simulation conclusion therefore does not follow from the cited theorems.

major comments (5)
  1. [Formal setup, Eq. (1)] The paper acknowledges that 'we do not have a fully consistent theory of quantum gravity,' yet it treats F_QG as a well-defined finite, consistent, arithmetically expressive formal system and asserts that string theory and loop quantum gravity satisfy the required criteria. Neither theory is exhibited as a first-order theory with a recursive axiom set; the criterion of 'empirical completeness' is not a formal property. Until such an axiomatization is supplied, Gödel's theorems have not been shown to apply to any existing quantum-gravity framework, so the strict containment Th(F_QG) ⊊ True(F_QG) is not a theorem about quantum gravity.
  2. [After Eq. (1)] The identification True(F_QG) = {φ ∈ L_QG | N ⊨ φ} is not well defined: N is the standard model of arithmetic, while L_QG contains physical primitives such as quantum states, fields, curvature, and causal relations. The Gödel sentence of F_QG is an arithmetical sentence about the encoding of proofs; the paper's claim that such sentences 'correspond to empirically meaningful facts—e.g., specific black-hole microstates' requires an explicit arithmetization and a physical interpretation of the arithmetical predicate. No such bridge is provided, so the move from formal undecidability to non-computable physical content is unsupported.
  3. [Chaitin paragraph after Eq. (1)] The statement that Chaitin's theorem establishes a constant K_FQG such that any sentence S with prefix-free Kolmogorov complexity K(S) > K_FQG is undecidable is inaccurate. Chaitin's incompleteness results show that a given formal system cannot prove certain true statements of high complexity, such as particular bits of Omega beyond a threshold; they do not imply that every sentence above a complexity bound is undecidable. Since this misstatement is one of the pillars of the 'Gödel–Tarski–Chaitin triad,' the conclusion that 'ultra-complex statements—inevitable in high-energy quantum gravity—are formally inaccessible' is overstated.
  4. [Eq. (2), MToE axioms] The meta-theory MToE is constructed by adjoining a non-recursively-enumerable set Σ_T of T-axioms and a non-effective rule R_nonalg, with condition (S4) stipulating that Th_T is not recursively enumerable. This is an oracle, not a theory: it simply declares every desired truth to be T-true. The later assertions that the truth predicate is 'actualized in nature' and that 'the universe is produced by MToE' are therefore assumptions encoded in the axioms, not consequences derived from physics. The no-simulation corollary inherits this circularity.
  5. [Simulation argument, final paragraphs] The premise that 'any putative simulation of the universe would itself be algorithmic' is asserted without argument. A simulation running on a non-Turing substrate, or one that uses an oracle for T, is not excluded by the paper's own framework. Moreover, undecidability results such as the spectral-gap theorem and uncomputable RG flows are decision problems over families of Hamiltonians or theories; they do not show that a fixed physical system's actual properties are non-computable. Without a concrete instance of a physical observable whose value is non-computable, the conclusion that our universe is 'definitely not a simulation' is not supported.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical errors, including 'underyling', 'computations limitations', and 'such that a purely algorithmic formulation is unattainable'; these should be corrected.
  2. [Eq. (1)] The notation in Eq. (1) is not typeset cleanly and the symbols L_QG, Σ_QG, and R_alg are only informally glossed; a precise definition of the syntax and proof system would be needed for the formal claims to be checkable.
  3. [References] Reference [48] (Kritchman and Raz) concerns the surprise examination paradox and does not appear to support the Chaitin-bound claim as cited; the authors should cite primary Chaitin references for that claim.
  4. [Black-hole information section] The phrase 'information-loss puzzle' is usually called the black-hole information paradox; using standard terminology would help readers connect the discussion to the existing literature.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

The no-simulation conclusion is forced by the definition of MToE, and the physical undecidability claim rests on a stipulated mapping from Gödel sentences to black-hole microstates.

  1. self definitional [Eq. (2) and final section ('The claim that our universe is itself a computer simulation...')]
    "Because MToE contains an external truth predicate T(x) that by construction escapes formal verification, any finite algorithm can at best emulate F_QG while systematically omitting the meta-theoretic truths enforced by T(x). ... As the universe is produced by MToE, the simulation hypothesis is logically impossible rather than merely implausible."

    MToE is defined in Eq. (2) by adjoining an external, non-recursively-enumerable axiom set Σ_T whose condition S4 already stipulates that 'sentences of arbitrarily high Kolmogorov complexity can still be T-true.' The claim that reality embeds non-computational content and therefore cannot be simulated is then derived by asserting 'the universe is produced by MToE.' That assertion is not an empirical or mathematical result; it is the definitional input restated as a conclusion. If the universe were instead identified with the computable core F_QG, the same Gödel theorems would yield only unprovability inside F_QG, not non-simulability. The 'prediction' that the universe is not a simulation is thus equivalent to the construction of MToE, not a consequence of undecidability results.

  2. other [After Eq. (1), Gödel/Tarski/Chaitin paragraph]
    "Physically these Gödel sentences correspond to empirically meaningful facts—e.g., specific black-hole microstates—that elude any finite, rule-based derivation."

    The formal step is Th(F_QG) ⊊ True(F_QG), where True(F_QG) is defined as truth in the standard model of arithmetic N. Gödel's theorem guarantees unprovable true sentences about the encoding of proofs, but the paper provides no mapping from those arithmetical sentences to 'specific black-hole microstates.' Moreover N ⊨ φ is not defined for L_QG formulas containing physical primitives such as quantum states and curvature. The identification of Gödel sentences with physical facts is the paper's central conclusion ('certain facets of reality will remain computationally undecidable') imported as an interpretive assumption.

full rationale

The purely formal part of the paper—that any consistent, arithmetically expressive, effectively axiomatized formal system has true but unprovable statements—is an independent mathematical fact and is not circular. However, the paper's physical conclusions depend on two moves. First, it identifies Gödel sentences with specific physical facts (black-hole microstates), a mapping that is asserted, not derived. Second, it defines MToE as containing a non-recursively-enumerable truth predicate and then concludes that the universe is not a simulation because 'the universe is produced by MToE.' That conclusion is a restatement of the definition: the non-algorithmic content is an axiom (S4), not a prediction. The many cited undecidability results in physics are also of the wrong logical form—they are undecidability of decision problems over families of systems, not non-computable properties of a fixed system—so they do not provide independent empirical support for the truth predicate operating 'within the fabric of the universe itself.' Self-citations (e.g., refs. [28], [45], [54]) are present but the Gödel/Tarski/Chaitin argument is stated in the text, so those citations are not load-bearing for the formal claim. Overall, the central formal claim is independent, but the strong physical/no-simulation corollaries reduce by construction, giving a score of 7.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the unverified premise that quantum gravity theories can be encoded as formal systems satisfying Gödel-suitable conditions, on a controversial philosophical argument (Lucas-Penrose), and on the assertion that any simulation would be algorithmic. There are no free numerical parameters. The invented entity is the external truth predicate T(x), which is posited and then used to conclude the universe contains non-algorithmic content.

assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Any viable quantum gravity theory can be encoded as a finite, consistent, arithmetically expressive formal system F_QG = {L_QG, Σ_QG, R_alg}.
    Introduced in Eq. (1) and the four criteria; no evidence is given that string theory, LQG, or other candidates satisfy all four, especially finite axiomatizability and arithmetic expressiveness.
  • standard math Gödel's first and second incompleteness theorems apply to F_QG.
    Follows from standard logic if the preceding formal-system assumption holds; the theorems themselves are external.
  • standard math Tarski's undefinability theorem applies to F_QG, so no internal truth predicate exists.
    Standard result, used correctly in the paper.
  • standard math Chaitin's theorem yields a constant K_FQG such that any sentence with prefix-free Kolmogorov complexity above it is undecidable.
    This is a misstatement of Chaitin's theorem; Chaitin's theorem gives a constant such that the system cannot prove statements of the form K(s) > c, not that all high-complexity sentences are undecidable.
  • ad hoc to paper Human observers (or nature) can access truths beyond algorithmic proof via a truth predicate, following the Lucas-Penrose argument and Orch-OR.
    Included to justify R_nonalg and Σ_T; the Lucas-Penrose argument is controversial and is treated as settled.
  • ad hoc to paper The universe is 'produced by MToE', so non-algorithmic truth is actualized in nature.
    Stated at the end; this is the conclusion dressed as an assumption.
  • domain assumption Any putative simulation of the universe would itself be algorithmic.
    Stated in the abstract and near the end; no argument is given for why a simulation must be Turing-equivalent.
invented entities (1)
  • External truth predicate T(x) with axiom set Σ_T and non-effective rule R_nonalg
    purpose: To certify Gödel sentences and provide non-algorithmic access to undecidable physical truths (e.g., black-hole microstates).
    No falsifiable prediction is made; the paper claims experiments realizing undecidable properties witness T(x), but that is an interpretation, not evidence.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Consequences of Undecidability in Physics on the Theory of Everything." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BWTV4WXL

@misc{pith2026250722950,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Consequences of Undecidability in Physics on the Theory of Everything},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BWTV4WXL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.22950}
}
read the original 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, G\"odel's incompleteness theorems, Tarski's undefinability theorem, and Chaitin's information-theoretic incompleteness establish intrinsic limits on any such algorithmic programme. 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.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz,Mechanics. Butterworth–Heinemann, Oxford, 1976

    1976

  2. [2]

    Rindler,Essential Relativity: Special, General, and Cosmological

    W. Rindler,Essential Relativity: Special, General, and Cosmological. Springer, Berlin, 1977

    1977

  3. [3]

    J. J. Sakurai and J. J. Napolitano,Modern Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2017

    2017

  4. [4]

    Srednicki,Quantum Field Theory

    M. Srednicki,Quantum Field Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007

    2007

  5. [5]

    Observation of the dynamical Casimir effect in a superconducting circuit,

    C. M. Wilson, G. Johansson, A. Pourkabirian, M. Simoen, J. R. Johansson, T. Duty, F. Nori, and P. Delsing, “Observation of the dynamical Casimir effect in a superconducting circuit,”Nature479 (2011) 376–379

    2011

  6. [6]

    The Unruh effect and its applications,

    L. C. B. Crispino, A. Higuchi, and G. E. A. Matsas, “The Unruh effect and its applications,”Reviews of Modern Physics80(2008) 787–838

    2008

  7. [7]

    Die Feldgleichungen der Gravitation,

    A. Einstein, “Die Feldgleichungen der Gravitation,”Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin(1915)

    1915

  8. [8]

    Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger,

    B. P. Abbottet al., “Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger,”Physical Review Letters116(2016) 061102

    2016

Show all 89 references
  1. [9]

    Gravitational Collapse and Space-Time Singularities,

    R. Penrose, “Gravitational Collapse and Space-Time Singularities,”Physical Review Letters14(1965) 57

    1965

  2. [10]

    The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology,

    S. Hawking and R. Penrose, “The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology,” Proceedings of the Royal Society A314(1970) 529

    1970

  3. [11]

    V. I. Arnold,Catastrophe Theory. Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 1992. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-642-58124-3

    1992 doi

  4. [12]

    The singularities of light: intensity, phase, polarisation,

    M. Berry, “The singularities of light: intensity, phase, polarisation,”Light Sci. Appl.12(2023) 238

    2023

  5. [13]

    Emergent geometries and nonlinear-wave dynamics in photon fluids,

    F. Marino, C. Maitland, D. Vocke, O. Ortolan, and D. Faccio, “Emergent geometries and nonlinear-wave dynamics in photon fluids,”Scientific Reports6(2016) 23282

    2016

  6. [14]

    Analogue simulations of quantum gravity with fluids,

    S. L. Braunstein, M. Faizal, L. M. Krauss, F. Marino, and N. A. Shah, “Analogue simulations of quantum gravity with fluids,”Nature Rev. Phys.5(2023) no. 10, 612–622

    2023

  7. [15]

    Absence of Singularity in Loop Quantum Cosmology,

    M. Bojowald, “Absence of Singularity in Loop Quantum Cosmology,”Physical Review Letters86 9 (2001) 5227

    2001

  8. [16]

    Quantum Nature of the Big Bang: Improved Dynamics,

    A. Ashtekar, T. Pawlowski, and P. Singh, “Quantum Nature of the Big Bang: Improved Dynamics,” Phys. Rev. D74(2006) 084003

    2006

  9. [17]

    The Fuzzball Proposal for Black Holes: An Elementary Review,

    S. D. Mathur, “The Fuzzball Proposal for Black Holes: An Elementary Review,”Fortschritte der Physik53(2005) 793

    2005

  10. [18]

    Tunneling into fuzzball states,

    S. D. Mathur, “Tunneling into fuzzball states,”Gen. Rel. Grav.42(2010) 113–118

    2010

  11. [19]

    The Spin Foam Approach to Quantum Gravity,

    A. Perez, “The Spin Foam Approach to Quantum Gravity,”Living Reviews in Relativity16(2013) 3

    2013

  12. [20]

    Generalized Metric Formulation of Double Field Theory,

    O. Hohm, C. Hull, and B. Zwiebach, “Generalized Metric Formulation of Double Field Theory,” Journal of High Energy Physics08(2010) 008

    2010

  13. [21]

    A Geometry for Non-Geometric String Backgrounds,

    C. M. Hull, “A Geometry for Non-Geometric String Backgrounds,”Journal of High Energy Physics 10(2005) 065

    2005

  14. [22]

    Traversable wormhole dynamics on a quantum processor,

    D. Jafferis, A. Zlokapa, J. D. Lykken, D. K. Kolchmeyer, S. I. Davis, N. Lauk, H. Neven, and M. Spiropulu, “Traversable wormhole dynamics on a quantum processor,”Nature612(2022) no. 7938, 51–55

    2022

  15. [23]

    Spacetime from bits,

    M. Van Raamsdonk, “Spacetime from bits,”Science370(2020) no. 6513, 198–202

    2020

  16. [24]

    Wheeler’s it from bit proposal in loop quantum gravity,

    J. M¨ akel¨ a, “Wheeler’s it from bit proposal in loop quantum gravity,”Int. J. Mod. Phys. D28(2019) no. 10, 1950129

    2019

  17. [25]

    Information, physics, quantum: The search for links,

    J. A. Wheeler, “Information, physics, quantum: The search for links,” inProceedings III International Symposium on Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, W. J. Archibald, ed., pp. 354–358. 1989. https://philarchive.org/rec/WHEIPQ

    1989

  18. [26]

    Noncommutative Geometry and String Field Theory,

    E. Witten, “Noncommutative Geometry and String Field Theory,”Nucl. Phys. B268(1986) 253–294

    1986

  19. [27]

    Comparing Quantum Gravity Models: String Theory, Loop Quantum Gravity, and Entanglement Gravity versus SU(∞)-QGR,

    H. Ziaeepour, “Comparing Quantum Gravity Models: String Theory, Loop Quantum Gravity, and Entanglement Gravity versus SU(∞)-QGR,”Symmetry14(2022) 58

    2022

  20. [28]

    Consequences of G¨ odel theorems on third quantized theories like string field theory and group field theory,

    M. Faizal, A. Shabir, and A. K. Khan, “Consequences of G¨ odel theorems on third quantized theories like string field theory and group field theory,”Nucl. Phys. B1010(2025) 116774

    2025

  21. [29]

    Spacetime as a causal set,

    L. Bombelli, J. Lee, D. Meyer, and R. D. Sorkin, “Spacetime as a causal set,”Physical Review Letters 59(1987) no. 5, 521–524

    1987

  22. [30]

    On the emergence of the structure of Physics,

    S. Majid, “On the emergence of the structure of Physics,”Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A376(2018) 0231

    2018

  23. [31]

    Physics Without Physics: The Power of Information-theoretical Principles,

    G. M. D’Ariano, “Physics Without Physics: The Power of Information-theoretical Principles,”Int. J. Theor. Phys.56(2017) no. 1, 97–128

    2017

  24. [32]

    Pregeometric Spaces from Wolfram Model Rewriting Systems as Homotopy Types,

    X. D. Arsiwalla and J. Gorard, “Pregeometric Spaces from Wolfram Model Rewriting Systems as Homotopy Types,”Int. J. Theor. Phys.63(2024) no. 4, 83

    2024

  25. [33]

    Emergent spacetime,

    N. Seiberg, “Emergent spacetime,” in23rd Solvay Conference in Physics: The Quantum Structure of Space and Time, pp. 163–178. 1, 2006.arXiv:hep-th/0601234

    2006 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Polchinski,String Theory

    J. Polchinski,String Theory. Cambridge University Press, 1998

    1998

  27. [35]

    Rovelli,Quantum Gravity

    C. Rovelli,Quantum Gravity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2004. 10

    2004

  28. [36]

    The end of space–time,

    M. Faizal, “The end of space–time,”Int. J. Mod. Phys. A38(2023) no. 35n36, 2350188

    2023

  29. [37]

    M. B. Green, J. H. Schwarz, and E. Witten,Superstring Theory. Cambridge University Press, 1987

    1987

  30. [38]

    Thiemann,Modern Canonical Quantum General Relativity

    T. Thiemann,Modern Canonical Quantum General Relativity. Cambridge University Press, 2007

    2007

  31. [39]

    Anomaly cancellation in supersymmetric d=10 gauge theory,

    M. B. Green and J. H. Schwarz, “Anomaly cancellation in supersymmetric d=10 gauge theory,” Physics Letters B149(1984) 117

    1984

  32. [40]

    New variables for classical and quantum gravity,

    A. Ashtekar, “New variables for classical and quantum gravity,”Physical Review Letters57(1986) 2244

    1986

  33. [41]

    ¨Uber formal unentscheidbare s¨ atze der principia mathematica und verwandter systeme i,

    K. G¨ odel, “¨Uber formal unentscheidbare s¨ atze der principia mathematica und verwandter systeme i,” Monatshefte f¨ ur Mathematik38(1931) no. 1, 173–198

    1931

  34. [42]

    Smith,An Introduction to G¨ odel’s Theorems

    P. Smith,An Introduction to G¨ odel’s Theorems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2nd ed., 2007

    2007

  35. [43]

    Pojecie Prawdy w Jezykach Nauk Dedukcyjnych (The Concept of Truth in the Languages of the Deductive Sciences),

    A. Tarski, “Pojecie Prawdy w Jezykach Nauk Dedukcyjnych (The Concept of Truth in the Languages of the Deductive Sciences),”Prace Towarzystwa Naukowego Warszawskiego, Wydzia l III34(1933) . https://openlibrary.org/books/OL5813583M/Poje%CC%A8cie_prawdy_w_je%CC%A8zykach_nauk_ ded...

    1933

  36. [44]

    Tarski,Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics: Papers from 1923 to 1938

    A. Tarski,Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics: Papers from 1923 to 1938. Hackett Publishing Company, Indianapolis, 1983

    1923

  37. [45]

    Implications of Tarski’s undefinability theorem on the Theory of Everything,

    M. Faizal, A. Shabir, and A. K. Khan, “Implications of Tarski’s undefinability theorem on the Theory of Everything,”EPL148(2024) no. 3, 39001

    2024

  38. [46]

    A theory of program size formally identical to information theory,

    G. J. Chaitin, “A theory of program size formally identical to information theory,”Journal of the ACM22(1975) no. 3, 329–340

    1975

  39. [47]

    G. J. Chaitin,Meta Math!: The Quest for Omega. Pantheon Books, New York, 2004

    2004

  40. [48]

    The surprise examination paradox and the second incompleteness theorem,

    S. Kritchman and R. Raz, “The surprise examination paradox and the second incompleteness theorem,”Notices of the AMS57(2010) no. 11, 1454

    2010

  41. [49]

    Minds, machines and g¨ odel,

    J. R. Lucas, “Minds, machines and g¨ odel,”Philosophy36(1961) no. 137, 112–127

    1961

  42. [50]

    G¨ odel, the mind, and the laws of physics,

    R. Penrose, “G¨ odel, the mind, and the laws of physics,” inKurt G¨ odel’s and the foundations of mathematics: horizons of truth, p. 339. Cambridge University Press, 2011

    2011

  43. [51]

    The nonalgorithmic mind,

    R. Penrose, “The nonalgorithmic mind,”Behavioral and Brain Sciences13(1990) no. 4, 692–

    1990

  44. [52]

    Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ’orch or’ theory,

    S. Hameroff and R. Penrose, “Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ’orch or’ theory,” Physics of Life Reviews11(2014) no. 1, 39–78

    2014

  45. [53]

    The lucas–penrose arguments,

    J. P. S., “The lucas–penrose arguments,” inThe Argument of Mathematics, p. Chapter 7. Springer, 2023

    2023

  46. [54]

    Quantum gravity cannot be both consistent and complete,

    M. Faizal, L. M. Krauss, A. Shabir, F. Marino, and B. Pourhassan, “Quantum gravity cannot be both consistent and complete,”arXiv:2505.11773 [gr-qc]

  47. [55]

    The entropy of hawking radiation,

    A. Almheiri, T. Hartman, J. Maldacena, E. Shaghoulian, and A. Tajdini, “The entropy of hawking radiation,”Reviews of Modern Physics93(2021) no. 3, 035002

    2021

  48. [56]

    Undecidability in quantum thermalization,

    N. Shiraishi and K. Matsumoto, “Undecidability in quantum thermalization,”Nature 11 Communications12(2021) 5084

    2021

  49. [57]

    Horizon formation and far-from-equilibrium isotropization in a supersymmetric yang-mills plasma,

    P. M. Chesler and L. G. Yaffe, “Horizon formation and far-from-equilibrium isotropization in a supersymmetric yang-mills plasma,”Phys. Rev. Lett.102(2009) 211601

    2009

  50. [58]

    The fuzzball proposal for black holes: An elementary review,

    S. D. Mathur, “The fuzzball proposal for black holes: An elementary review,”Fortsch. Phys.53 (2005) 793–827

    2005

  51. [59]

    Coarse graining spin foam quantum gravity—a review,

    S. Steinhaus, “Coarse graining spin foam quantum gravity—a review,”Frontiers in Physics8(2020)

    2020

  52. [60]

    Undecidability of the spectral gap,

    T. Cubitt, D. Perez-Garcia, and M. M. Wolf, “Undecidability of the spectral gap,”Forum of Mathematics, Pi10(2022) e14

    2022

  53. [61]

    On computable numbers, with an application to the entscheidungsproblem,

    A. M. Turing, “On computable numbers, with an application to the entscheidungsproblem,” Proceedings of the London Mathematical Societys2-42(1937) no. 1, 230

    1937

  54. [62]

    Li and P

    M. Li and P. Vit´ anyi,An Introduction to Kolmogorov Complexity and Its Applications. Springer, 2019

    2019

  55. [63]

    Uncomputably complex renormalisation group flows,

    J. D. Watson, E. Onorati, and T. S. Cubitt, “Uncomputably complex renormalisation group flows,” Nature Communications13(2022) no. 1, 7618

    2022

  56. [64]

    Strings in background fields,

    C. G. Callan, D. Friedan, E. J. Martinec, and M. J. Perry, “Strings in background fields,”Nucl. Phys. B262(1985) 593–609

    1985

  57. [65]

    Emergence of spacetime in a restricted spin-foam model,

    S. Steinhaus and J. Th¨ urigen, “Emergence of spacetime in a restricted spin-foam model,”Phys. Rev. D98(2018) no. 2, 026013

    2018

  58. [66]

    Fixed points of quantum gravity,

    D. Litim, “Fixed points of quantum gravity,”Phys. Rev. Lett.92(2004) 201301

    2004

  59. [67]

    The spectral dimension of the universe is scale dependent,

    J. Ambjørn, J. Jurkiewicz, and R. Loll, “The spectral dimension of the universe is scale dependent,”Phys. Rev. Lett.95(Oct, 2005) 171301

    2005

  60. [68]

    adequate explanation

    and LQG [69] are formally uncomputable [70]. Deducing supersymmetry breaking in certain two-dimensional theories is undecidable [71], influencing model building in string theory [39]. Phase diagrams of engineered spin models encode uncomputable problems [72], and the mathemati...

  61. [69]

    Holographic duality from random tensor networks,

    P. Hayden, S. Nezami, X.-L. Qi, N. Thomas, M. Walter, and Z. Yang, “Holographic duality from random tensor networks,”Journal of High Energy Physics2016(2016) 009

    2016

  62. [70]

    Coarse graining methods for spin net and spin foam models,

    B. Dittrich, F. C. Eckert, and M. Martin-Benito, “Coarse graining methods for spin net and spin foam models,”New J. Phys.14(2012) 035008

    2012

  63. [71]

    Matrix-product operators and states: Np-hardness and undecidability,

    M. Kliesch, D. Gross, and J. Eisert, “Matrix-product operators and states: Np-hardness and undecidability,”Physical Review Letters113(2014) no. 16, 160503

    2014

  64. [72]

    Undecidable problems in quantum field theory,

    Y. Tachikawa, “Undecidable problems in quantum field theory,”International Journal of Theoretical Physics62(2023) 199

    2023

  65. [73]

    Uncomputability of phase diagrams,

    J. Bausch, T. S. Cubitt, and J. D. Watson, “Uncomputability of phase diagrams,”Nature Communications12(2021) 452

    2021

  66. [74]

    Ising spin network states for loop quantum gravity: A toy model for phase transitions,

    A. Feller and E. R. Livine, “Ising spin network states for loop quantum gravity: A toy model for phase transitions,”Class. Quant. Grav.33(2016) no. 6, 065005

    2016

  67. [75]

    Principle of sufficient reason,

    F. Amijee, “Principle of sufficient reason,” inEncyclopedia of Early Modern Philosophy and the Sciences, D. Jalobeanu and C. T. Wolfe, eds. Springer, 2021

    2021

  68. [76]

    G. W. Leibniz,Discourse on Metaphysics. Hackett Publishing Company, Indianapolis, 1996. https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/leibniz1686d.pdf. A seminal work where Leibniz famously asserts that ”nothing happens without a reason.”. 12

    1996

  69. [77]

    Undecidable dynamics,

    C. H. Bennett, “Undecidable dynamics,”Nature346(1990) 606–607

    1990

  70. [78]

    Deciding the undecidable,

    I. Stewart, “Deciding the undecidable,”Nature352(1991) 664–665

    1991

  71. [79]

    Cauchy problem in spacetimes with closed timelike curves,

    J. L. Friedman, M. S. Morris, I. D. Novikov, F. Echeverria, G. Klinkhammer, K. S. Thorne, and U. Yurtsever, “Cauchy problem in spacetimes with closed timelike curves,”Physical Review D42 (1990) no. 6, 1915–1930

    1990

  72. [80]

    Time machine and self-consistent evolution in problems with self-interaction,

    I. D. Novikov, “Time machine and self-consistent evolution in problems with self-interaction,”Phys. Rev. D45(1992) no. 11,

    1992

  73. [81]

    Measurement-based quantum computation and undecidable logic,

    M. Van den Nest and H. J. Briegel, “Measurement-based quantum computation and undecidable logic,”Foundations of Physics38(2008) 448–457

    2008

  74. [82]

    Quantum-mechanical computers and uncomputability,

    S. Lloyd, “Quantum-mechanical computers and uncomputability,”Physical Review Letters71(1993) no. 6, 943–946

    1993

  75. [83]

    On gravity’s role in quantum state reduction,

    R. Penrose, “On gravity’s role in quantum state reduction,”General Relativity and Gravitation28 (1996) 581

    1996

  76. [84]

    A universal master equation for the gravitational violation of quantum mechanics,

    L. Di´ osi, “A universal master equation for the gravitational violation of quantum mechanics,”Physics Letters A120(1987) 377

    1987

  77. [85]

    Spontaneous collapse models lead to the emergence of classicality of the Universe,

    J. L. Gaona-Reyes, L. Men´ endez-Pidal, M. Faizal, and M. Carlesso, “Spontaneous collapse models lead to the emergence of classicality of the Universe,”JHEP02(2024) 193

    2024

  78. [86]

    Undecidability in physics: a review,

    ´Alvaro Perales-Eceiza, T. Cubitt, M. Gu, D. P´ erez-Garc ´ ıa, and M. M. Wolf, “Undecidability in physics: a review,” 2024.https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.16532

    2024 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Are we living in a computer simulation?,

    N. Bostrom, “Are we living in a computer simulation?,”Philosophical Quarterly53(2003) no. 211, 243–255

    2003

  80. [88]

    Guttenplan,David J

    S. Guttenplan,David J. Chalmers, Reality+: Virtual Worlds and the Problems of Philosophy, vol. 60. 2023

    2023

  81. [89]

    Deutsch,The Fabric of Reality

    D. Deutsch,The Fabric of Reality. Penguin, London, 1997. https://www.daviddeutsch.org.uk/books/the-fabric-of-reality/. 13

    1997

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.