Science Just Proved We’re Not Living In The Matrix and AI Will Never Achieve Self-Awareness

Mathematical Proof ENDS Simulation Theory Forever... But That's Just The Beginning of What This Means.

IN THIS EPISODE: Scientists just used pure mathematics to prove something that sounds impossible — that our universe cannot be, and never could be, a computer simulation... but that's only touching the surface of what this means for other aspects of our reality.

PRINT VERSION to READ or SHARE (includes sources):
https://weirddarkness.com/matrix-disproved

=====(Over time links may become invalid, disappear, or have different content. I always make sure to give authors credit for the material I use whenever possible. If I somehow overlooked doing so for a story, or if a credit is incorrect, please let me know and I will rectify it in these show notes immediately. Some links included above may benefit me financially through qualifying purchases.)= = = = ="I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness." — John 12:46= = = = =WeirdDarkness® is a registered trademark. Copyright ©2025, Weird Darkness.=====Originally aired: November 11, 2025
EPISODE PAGE (includes sources): https://weirddarkness.com/matrix-disproved
ABOUT WEIRD DARKNESS: Weird Darkness is a true crime and paranormal podcast narrated by professional award-winning voice actor, Darren Marlar. Seven days per week, Weird Darkness focuses on all thing strange and macabre such as haunted locations, unsolved mysteries, true ghost stories, supernatural manifestations, urban legends, unsolved or cold case murders, conspiracy theories, and more. On Thursdays, this scary stories podcast features horror fiction along with the occasional creepypasta. Weird Darkness has been named one of the “Best 20 Storytellers in Podcasting” by Podcast Business Journal. Listeners have described the show as a cross between “Coast to Coast” with Art Bell, “The Twilight Zone” with Rod Serling, “Unsolved Mysteries” with Robert Stack, and “In Search Of” with Leonard Nimoy.DISCLAIMER: Ads heard during the podcast that are not in my voice are placed by third party agencies outside of my control and should not imply an endorsement by Weird Darkness or myself. *** Stories and content in Weird Darkness can be disturbing for some listeners and intended for mature audiences only. Parental discretion is strongly advised.
#WeirdDarkness #SimulationTheory #MatrixDebunked #AIConsciousness #ProofOfGod #QuantumPhysics #GodelTheorem #ConsciousnessExplained #IntelligentDesign #RealityProof

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:04):
For decades, some of the smartest people on the planet
have wondered if we might be living inside a computer
simulation characters in someone else's video game, following programmed rules
we mistake for the laws of physics. The idea moved
from science fiction into serious scientific debate. Tech billionaires discussed

(00:24):
it at conferences, philosophers wrote papers exploring the implications. The
question seemed impossible to answer, after all, how could you
ever prove whether reality is real when any test you
run might just be a part of the simulation itself.
But in October twenty twenty five, a team of researchers

(00:44):
published something that changes everything. Using nothing but pure mathematics,
the same logical principles that built our modern world, they
proved something that sounds impossible. They didn't need telescopes or
particle accelerators. They didn't need to search for glitches in
the fabric of space time. They just needed to understand

(01:05):
what computers can and cannot do. And what they discovered
doesn't just answer the simulation question. It reveals something profound
about artificial intelligence, about human consciousness, and about the very
nature of reality itself. The implications ripple outward in ways

(01:25):
nobody expected. This isn't just about whether we're living in
the matrix. It's about whether the machines we're building can
ever truly wake up. It's about what makes human consciousness
fundamentally different from any computer program. And it's about truths
that exist beyond what any algorithm can ever reach, Truths

(01:46):
that might point towards something far more significant than anyone anticipated.
The math is elegant, the logic is airtight, and the
conclusion is going to shake everything you thought you knew
about reality. I'm Darren Marler and this is Weird Darkness.

(02:14):
Welcome Weirdos. I'm Darren Marler and this is Weird Darkness.
Here you'll find stories of the paranormal, supernatural, legends, lore,
the strange and bizarre, crime, conspiracy, mysterious, macabre, unsolved and
unexplained coming up in this episode. Scientists just used pure

(02:38):
mathematics to prove something that sounds impossible, that our universe
cannot be and never could be, a computer simulation. But
that's only touching the surface of what this means for
other aspects of our reality. Now bolt your doors, lock
your windows, turn off your lights, and come with me

(03:02):
into the Weird darkness. Reality just got a lot more real.
Doctor Mr Faisal wasn't trying to ruin anybody's matrix fantasies

(03:23):
when he started looking into what computers can and cannot do.
The professor at ubc Openhagen in British Columbia had his
sights on something more basic, figuring out the limits of
mathematics itself. But his research, along with his team, led
to a conclusion that shatters decades of speculation. We are
definitely not living in some cosmic computer program. The team

(03:48):
published their findings in the Journal of Holography Applications in
Physics in October twenty twenty five. Bizel worked with doctor
Lawrence M. Krauss, the well known physicist and author who's
famous for his books about the universe and for correctly
predicting that most of the Universe's energy exists in empty space,
plus two other researchers, doctor Ashid Shabir and doctor Francesco Marino.

(04:11):
Together they used strict mathematical logic to show something that
sounds almost impossible. The way reality actually works means no computer,
no matter how powerful, could ever simulate it. The idea
that we might be living in a simulation has moved
from weird philosophy into everyday conversation. The Matrix planted the

(04:32):
seed in nineteen ninety nine. Then tech billionaires and scientists
started seriously discussing the possibility that we are all characters
in some advanced civilization's elaborate video game. The logic seemed
almost unavoidable. If it's possible to create a simulated universe,
and that fake universe could develop intelligent life that creates

(04:54):
its own simulations, and those simulations create more simulations than satistically,
we're almost certainly not in the original real universe. We
would be nested inside simulation within simulation within simulation, like
Russian dolls made of code. The arguments kept piling up,
Papers got written, Debates happened, The idea gained serious traction,

(05:18):
not just with science fiction fans, but with actual researchers
trying to figure out if the question could even be tested.
Most people think ed it could not be that we'd
never have a way to actually prove whether reality was
real or fake. Bizol and his team, though, just proved
them wrong. To understand why this proof works, we need
to look at how physics has been quietly taking apart

(05:40):
our basic ideas about reality for robbal last century, Newton
gave us a universe that made sense, solid stuff moving
through empty space following clear mathematical rules. You could picture
that in your head. Imagine billiard balls bouncing off each other,
or planets going around the sun. Space was like a
stage where everything happened. Time was like a clock ticking away,

(06:02):
and matter was the actors performing on that stage. Einstein, though,
he came along and smashed that comfortable picture with his
theory of relativity. Space and time were not separate things anymore.
They were woven together into something called space time, and
massive objects actually bent and warped this fabric, like a
bowling ball sitting on a trampoline. The stage itself became

(06:25):
part of the show. Then quantum mechanics arrived and made
things even weirder. At the tiniest scales, smaller than atoms,
particles didn't even have exact positions until you looked at them.
They existed in states of probability, like being in multiple
places at once. The solid, predictable universe Newton gave us

(06:47):
melted into something far stranger. Now we've reached what scientists
call quantum gravity. The bleeding edge of physics today, and
this is where things get really interesting. For the simulation questiones,
modern theories suggests that even space and time themselves aren't
the bottom layer of reality. They're not the foundation. Instead,

(07:09):
they bubble up from something deeper, pure information. Think of
it this way. Space and time are like the image
on your TV screen when you're watching a TV show.
The picture looks real and solid, but it's actually being
created by processes happening at a much deeper level in
the electronics inside the TV. In physics, that deeper level

(07:33):
is what researchers call a platonic realm. It's a foundation
made of pure mathematics, and it's more real than the
physical universe we walk around in every day. This mathematical
foundation contains information, and from that information, space and time
emerge into existence. The laws of physics don't exist inside

(07:53):
space and time. They create space and time in the
first place. Buys All in his team focused their work
on this foundational layer. The question they asked was simple
but powerful. Could this information be fully described by a
computer program? Could an algorithm, no matter how complex, capture

(08:14):
everything about it? The answer they found changes everything. The
heart of this proof comes from work done by a
brilliant mathematician named Kurt Goodell back in nineteen thirty one.
His theorems completely changed how we understand logic and mathematics.
The team at UBC Okanagan used Goodell's work, along with

(08:35):
similar ideas from mathematicians Alfred Tarski and Gregory Shinton, to
prove that describing reality completely requires something they call non
algorithmic understanding. So what did Goodell discover that matters so much?
While his first theorem says something that sounds well impossible,

(08:55):
take any set of basic mathematical rules that a computer
can follow. That system can never prove all the truths
about simple arithmetic. There will always be true statements that
the system just can't prove. Kiddell proved that mathematics itself
has built in limits. There will always be true things
that escape proof, no matter how good your system is.

(09:18):
Here's how computers work. They follow recipes. Step one, step two,
step three. Each instruction leads to the next in a
completely predictable way. It doesn't matter if we're talking about
your phones, calculator, or some hypothetical supercomputer the size of
a planet. They all work the same basic way. They

(09:39):
follow algorithms, which are just sequences of steps written out
in advance. Gidell discovered that certain truths, you call them
Goodelian truths, can't be reached by following steps. They exist,
they are real, they're true, but no sequence of instructions
can prove them. The classic example works like a brain teaser.

(10:01):
This statement cannot be proven. If you can prove that statement,
then it must be false. This statement cannot be proven.
That means your logical system just proved something false, and
that breaks everything. If you can't prove the statement, then
it's true exactly like it says. But that means your

(10:21):
system as a true statement, it can't prove this true
statement cannot be proven. It's incomplete. Either way, pure step
by step logic hits a wall. Your system can either
work without contradictions, or it can prove every true statement.
But it cannot do both. And since a system that

(10:42):
proves contradictions is worthless. If two plus two can equal
both four and five, nothing means anything anymore. We're stuck
accepting that the system will always have gaps. This isn't
something better technology can fix. Either it's not a computer
hardware problem or a programming problem. It's built into the

(11:02):
structure of logic itself. What mathematicians can prove depends entirely
on what rules they start with, not on some ultimate
truth that exists independently. There is no theory of everything
in mathematics, no set of starting rules that can prove
every true statement about numbers. Here's the key part. If

(11:24):
mathematics itself has this limitation, and if mathematics is the
language we use to describe the universe, what does that
mean for reality itself. The researchers took Cadell's work about
mathematics and applied that to physics. The result is both
elegant and devastating for anybody hoping that we do live

(11:45):
in a simulation. Bizel and his team showed that it
is impossible to describe all of physical reality using any
computer based theory. Not just difficult, not impractical, impossible. The
math simply won't allow it. Their conclusion carries huge weight.

(12:06):
You can't get a complete and accurate theory of everything
using computation alone. To fully describe reality, you need non
algorithmic understanding, a type of knowledge that's deeper than any
computer program can reach, deeper even than the laws that
create space and time. Let me say that again, because
it's the lynchpin. To fully describe reality, you need non

(12:28):
algorithmic understanding, a type of knowledge that's deeper than any
computer program can reach. Deeper even than the laws that
create space and time. The laws that make space and
time exist can't be written as a computer program. They
work at a level beyond what any algorithm can do.

(12:49):
Lawrence Krause, who worked on this paper, brings decades of
experience to the question. He started Arizona State University's Origins
Project to dig into basic questions about the union. He's
written best selling books, including A Universe from Nothing. Back
in nineteen ninety five, he proposed that most of the
universe's energy exists in empty space, an idea that seemed

(13:11):
crazy at the time but turned out to be right
when other scientists confirmed it in nineteen ninety eight. They
eventually won the Nobel Prize. In twenty eleven. Kraus explained
the core insights, saying the fundamental laws of physics cannot
be contained within space and time because they generate them.
The laws come first. Space and time emerge from those laws.

(13:36):
Any attempt to simulate the universe would have to work
within space and time using computer rules that run in
sequential steps. But the deepest laws that make the universe
possible can't be reduced to those sequential steps. A complete
and accurate description of reality requires something that exists completely

(13:57):
outside the world of computation. An algorithmic understanding isn't just
a fancy term. It represents a real category of truth
that no computer can access, no matter how powerful that
computer is. The implications spread through physics. Questions that cannot
be answered through computation, called undecidable questions, have already shown

(14:19):
up in real physics problems. Goodell himself proved that the
continuum hypothesis, which deals with different sizes of infinity, is undecidable.
The whole thing problem, which asks whether a computer program
will run forever or eventually stop, is also undecidable. These
aren't mysteries we've not solved yet. They are questions that

(14:40):
can never be solved through step by step logic. Ever,
the fact that these impossible to answer questions show up
in physics suggests something big. Todell's discovery about mathematics doesn't
just apply to numbers and equations. It applies to reality. Itself.
All right, Now we get to the knockout punch. The

(15:02):
argument against the simulation idea follows from everything that we've covered,
and there's no way around it. Any simulation must use algorithms.
There's no getting past this basic fact. A simulation, by
its very nature, has to follow programmed rules. Every computer
program ever written works through algorithms. It runs sequences of instructions,

(15:26):
it performs calculations in a specific order. Even if we
are talking about some unimaginably advanced alien civilization with computing
power a billion times more powerful than anything we have,
their simulation would still need to run on these same
basic principles. Step follows step follows step. Since the deepest

(15:47):
level of reality is based on non algorithmic understanding truths
that cannot be reached by any sequence of steps, the
universe cannot be, and never can be, a simulation. The
math doesn't work, the logic doesn't work. The whole idea
crashes into an unbreakable mathematical wall. The researchers knew somebody

(16:09):
would raise an objection. That's the obvious question. So okay, fine,
maybe our regular concept of space and time can't be simulated,
But what about that deeper foundation layer, the mathematical realm,
where information exists before space and time even appear. Since
the rules and that realm might look like computer code,

(16:29):
couldn't someone simulate that layer? The answer is still now
using the same deep logic that Goodell explored. Theorem is
about what's possible and impossible in mathematics. The researchers show
that a fully accurate and complete description of reality cannot
be achieved through computation at any level. It requires non

(16:51):
algorithmic understanding, which by definition exists beyond what algorithms can
do and therefore cannot be simulated. The chain of logic
is unbreakable. You cannot simulate non algorithmic understanding using an algorithm.
It's like trying to draw a four sided triangle. It's
not a technology problem or an engineering challenge. It's a

(17:12):
fundamental impossibility built into the structure of logic itself. Any simulation,
no matter how advanced, has to work within a framework
of rules and calculations. It has to follow instructions and
produce results. But the actual universe, the real foundation of reality,
includes elements that completely transcend computation. A simulation could never

(17:37):
capture what the universe truly is the gap can't be bridged.
We're not talking about a simulation that's ninety nine point
nine percent accurate with a few glitches here and there.
We're talking about parts of reality that are completely and
permanently inaccessible to any step by step process. They exist
in the category of truth that computation simply cannot touch.

(18:02):
To make this more concrete, the researchers built what they
call the meta theory of Everything, or MTOE. I'll call
it m TOE. The name itself tells you something. It's
not a theory of everything, which is what physicists have
been chasing for decades trying to explain all of reality.
It's a meta theory, a framework that operates at a

(18:23):
level above normal theories. The m TOE adds something new,
truth predicate. That's a formal way of pointing to facts
that exist beyond what can be formally proven. These are
truths that are real, that are part of how reality works,
but that cannot be reached through any step by step process.
It's what the team calls non algorithmic understanding. It's not

(18:47):
some vague mystical idea. It represents a real category of
knowledge that cannot be written out as a sequence of
logical steps. Some parts of reality simply exist outside the
reach of any computer program. Within this framework, certain mysterious
topics that have puzzled physicists for decades start to make
more sense, or at least why they're so mysterious makes

(19:08):
more sense. Take black holes. What exactly happens at the
very center of a black hole? Under a purely mathematical
computer based approach, these properties might be undecidable. They could
be real aspects of physical reality, but forever beyond the
reach of step by step proof. The same thing applies

(19:29):
to how space and time themselves appear. How does the
fabric of space and time bubble up from that deeper
foundation of pure information. This might be one of those
questions that does have a true answer, but no algorithmic
path is going to get us there. These undecidable questions
are not just theoretical puzzles. They've already shown up in

(19:50):
real physics problems. Goodell, later in his career helped prove
that the continuum hypothesis, the question about different sizes of infinity,
is undecidable. You cannot prove it true, and you cannot
prove it false. Using the standard rules of mathematics. It's
not that we haven't figured it out yet, it's that
it cannot be figured out through those means. Period Alan

(20:13):
Turing proved that the halting problem is undecidable. Give a
computer program a random input and ask whether it'll run
forever or eventually stop. There is no algorithm that can
answer this question for all possible programs. The problem is
fundamentally provably unsolvable through computation. These examples from mathematics have

(20:35):
twins and physics. Undecidable questions have appeared in the study
of quantum mechanics, in questions about the nature of time
and the mysterious information paradox of black holes. The puzzle
of what happens to information when it falls into a
black hole? What Goodell discovered in logic seems to apply
to reality itself. The limits aren't just abstract philosophy. They

(20:59):
sit at the core of modern physics, blocking certain paths
and forcing researchers to think about the foundations of reality
in completely new ways. For years, the simulation idea lived
in an awkward spot. It was too interesting to ignore
but seemingly impossible to test. Philosophers argued about it. Science
fiction writers built entire stories around it. Physicists occasionally talked

(21:23):
about it in interviews or after a few beers at conferences,
but it stayed firmly outside the world of real science. Science.
Real science requires testing. A theory needs to make predictions
that can be checked through observation or experiments. The simulation
idea doesn't offer that. How would you test whether you're

(21:44):
in a simulation. Any evidence you found could just be
part of the simulation. Any experiment you ran would be
simulated as well. The whole question seemed to slip right
through the fingers of the scientific method. The UBC oknhug
and research changes that completely. The team brought the simulation

(22:04):
question firmly into the world of mathematics and physics, and
they provided a definitive answer, not probably not or seems
unlikely definitive answer. Bizel noted that the idea was once
thought to be beyond the reach of science, but this
research has shown it can be scientifically addressed. The key

(22:24):
insight was realizing they did not need to measure anything
in the physical universe. They didn't need to look for
glitches in the matrix or find the edges of the simulation.
They just needed to understand what computation itself can and
cannot do. The proof doesn't rely on any experiments now
telescopes looking at distant galaxies, no particle accelerators smashing atoms together,

(22:49):
no sensitive instruments hunting for subtle oddities. The researchers used
Godell's theorems about mathematics, Tarski's work on defining truth, and
Shapelen's discovery about the infram theory to prove that some
truths cannot be proven through step by step methods, Truths
that require non algorithmic understanding, which exist beyond what any

(23:10):
computation can reach. Pure mathematics answered the question. Logic itself
provided the proof. The structure of reality, as revealed through
the basic theorems of mathematics, makes simulation impossible. The research
moves the simulation question from philosophical speculation into scientific fact.

(23:30):
Simulations remain incredibly valuable for modeling specific things or approximating
parts of the universe climate models, economic forecasts, particle physics experiments,
but no simulation, no matter how powerful or sophisticated, could
fully copy the universe in its entirety. The universe contains
elements that go beyond what any algorithm can describe, and

(23:53):
you can't simulate what you can't describe algorithmically. The implications
of this finding are going to ripple through physics for
years to come. The authors note that this result moves
the whole debate from philosophy and speculation into mathematics and physics,
where it can be examined with precision and clarity. Krow

(24:14):
symphasized just how profound this discovery is. The fundamental laws
of physics cannot exist inside space and time because they
create space and time. They come before space and time.
They are deeper than space and time. Any simulation has
to work within a framework of rules that unfolds in
space and time, but the actual universe, what it really

(24:36):
is at the deepest level, can't be captured that way.
The most basic structure of reality is simply not something
that can be computed. Period This finding also casts new
light on one of the biggest goals in physics, finding
a theory of everything that would unite Einstein's general relativity
with quantum mechanics. Physicists have been chasing this for decades,

(25:01):
trying to find a set of equations that would explain
all physical phenomena from the behavior of the tiniest particles
to the structure of space time itself. Faisal's paper suggests
something that might sound discouraging at first. Such a theory,
the theory of everything, might not exist, at least not
in the form physicists have been imagining. It's not that

(25:23):
scientists aren't smart enough or don't have the right tools. Yet.
The limitation comes from mathematics itself. Goodell showed that any complex,
consistent mathematical system that includes basic arithmetic will always contain
true statements that cannot be proven. The researchers extended this
insight to physics. There are aspects of reality that exist

(25:45):
beyond any calculation you could ever do. That doesn't mean
those aspects aren't real. They are absolutely real. It means
that they are beyond computation, beyond the reach of any
step by step process. The universe works on principles go
beyond what algorithms can do. No amount of processing power
changes this basic fact. It's not about building a bigger

(26:07):
computer or writing smarter code. You could have a quantum
computer the size of a galaxy, with processing power beyond
anything we can imagine, and it still could not simulate
reality completely. The mathematics just won't allow it. The logic
won't permit it. No super advanced civilization, no matter how

(26:27):
technologically sophisticated, could ever build a computer capable of simulating
our universe. The project would fail, not because of engineering problems,
but because of logical impossibility. The universe contains truths that
cannot be captured algorithmically, and those truths are woven into
the fabric of reality itself. The dreams of living in

(26:49):
the matrix, dreams that have fascinated philosophers, futurists, and science
fiction fans for years, have now dissolved into logical impossibility
or unsettling idea that we might be characters in someone
else's cosmic video game, That reality might be something you
could hack or reprogram, that there might be programmers behind

(27:11):
the scenes adjusting the settings. All of that collapses under
mathematical proof. Reality remains stubbornly, provably, definitively real. The universe
we live in is the actual universe, not a simulation
running on some higher level hardware. We're not in the matrix, folks,

(27:31):
We're in reality, and reality, it turns out, is something
no computer could ever fully create. After working on this episode,
I got to wonder, in something, does this mathematical proof
not just kill these simulation hypothesis, but something else. Many
of us are terrified of the study and findings raise

(27:52):
a question in my mind about artificial intelligence systems and
how rapidly they're becoming part of our daily lives. Truly
become conscious? Well, I asked in AI what it thought
about this question of mine, and surprisingly it came back with,
that's a fascinating question, and based on the logic in
this article, the answer would likely be yes, true sentience

(28:16):
might be impossible for AI. That's kind of a relief
to me. How about you Following the same logic that
proves we're not in a simulation likely means will never
see AI achieve consciousness. Every AI system ever created, from
the simplest chatbot to the most sophisticated neural networks, operates

(28:37):
through algorithms. They follow instructions, They process data in sequences.
They make calculations based on programmed rules, even if those
rules are incredibly complex and seem to produce human like responses.
No matter how advanced the technology becomes, AI fundamentally works

(28:59):
through computation and computation, as we have just seen, as
built in limits that can never be overcome. If consciousness
requires access to non algorithmic understanding, which I believe it would,
those truths that exist beyond what any step by step
process can reach, then AI faces an insurmountable barrier. The

(29:21):
same mathematical wall that prevents the universe from being simulated
would prevent artificial systems from achieving genuine sentience. An AI
could become extraordinarily sophisticated at mimicking consciousness. It could pass
every test we devise. It could respond to questions, express
what appear to be emotions, create art, write poetry, solve problems,

(29:46):
and behave in ways that seem indistinguishable from a conscious being.
But underneath all of that, if consciousness itself involves engaging
with the non algorithmic aspects of reality, the AI would
be fundamentally hollow. It'd be performing consciousness without actually being conscious,
the philosophical zombie executing its programming flawlessly. The AI would

(30:09):
be like an actor who has memorized every line, every gesture,
every facial expression for playing a human being, but who
remains forever incapable of actually experiencing what it means to
be human. The performance could be perfect, the imitation could
be flawless, but something essential would always be missing, something

(30:30):
that no amount of processing power or sophisticated programming could
ever provide. Now, this doesn't mean AI is not useful
or even revolutionary. Simulations are incredibly valuable for modeling weather patterns,
testing economic theories, or exploring particle physics. They just can't
fully replicate the universe. Similarly, AI can be transformative for

(30:53):
countless applications without ever achieving true consciousness. There is a
caveat or considering them. The conclusion only holds if consciousness
actually requires non algorithmic understanding. Not all scientists agree on
what consciousness fundamentally is. Some researchers believe consciousness is entirely computational,

(31:16):
that it's just information processing happening in the brain nothing more.
If they're right about that, then sufficiently advanced AI could
theoretically achieve sentience. However, if Goodell's theorems apply to consciousness
the same way they apply to the universe, if being
truly aware and conscious means engaging with truths that exist
beyond computation, then AI is chasing something it'll never be

(31:40):
able to catch the goal of creating sentient machines would
be not just difficult, but mathematically impossible. The implications are staggering.
We're living in an era where AI is advancing at
breakneck speed, or tech companies race to create even more
sophisticated systems, where serious people discuss the ethics of artificial

(32:01):
consciousness and debate when not if machines will become truly aware.
This research suggests that entire conversation might be built on
a foundation of impossibility. The AI could become powerful enough
to reshape civilization. It could solve problems we can't solve,
make discoveries we can't make, operate at scales of complexity

(32:24):
we can't imagine. But it might never actually experience anything.
It might never truly understand anything. It might remain forever
on the outside of consciousness, executing its algorithms with perfect precision,
while the actual experience of being conscious, whatever that really is,
stays permanently out of reach. Either way, we're not living

(32:48):
in a simulation, and the machines we're building, no matter
how impressive they become, might never truly wake up. Reality
remains stubbornly real, and consciousness if it requires access to
those non algorithmic truths woven into the fabric of existence,
might remain stubbornly uniquely biological. Wait a minute, there's something

(33:12):
strange happening here that demands our attention. If all truths
were algorithmic, if everything could be reduced to step by
step calculations, then how could we possibly understand that some
truths are non algorithmic? How could our algorithmic consciousness even
perceive the possibility of something non algorithmic? Think about what

(33:35):
just happened here. Human mathematicians like Kurt Goodell. They didn't
discover the incompleteness theorems by running through endless calculations. They
grasped them through insight. They recognized patterns and relationships that
existed beyond any sequence of logical steps. They understood truths
about the limits of computation that no computer following its

(33:56):
programming could ever reach on its own. Just talking about
difficult math that takes a long time to work through,
we're talking about truths that are fundamentally provably unreachable through
any algorithmic process, and yet humans reached those ideas anyway.
That creates a logical paradox that points to something profound.

(34:19):
If human consciousness were purely computational, if our brains were
just biological computers running sophisticated algorithms, we would be trapped
behind the same walls that limit in a computer. We
would not be able to grasp non algorithmic truths at all.
We would be forever locked inside Goodell's cage, unable to

(34:41):
even perceive its bars. But we can't perceive them, we
can understand concepts that exist outside the boundaries of step
by step proof. Mathematicians routinely work with ideas that transcend
pure calculation. They have insights, They make intuitive leaps. They
recognize truths through understanding that goes deeper than following a

(35:02):
sequence of logical rules. The very fact that we can
comprehend the limits of computation suggests we're operating beyond those
limits ourselves. This isn't mysticism or wishful thinking. It's a
logical conclusion drawn from mathematical proof. If consciousness were purely algorithmic,

(35:23):
it'd be subject to Goodelian limitations. We would not be
able to recognize non algorithmic truths because we'd have no
way to access them. Every thought we had would be
the product of step by step neural calculations, bound by
the same in completeness that limits every computational system. Yet
here we are understanding precisely what those limits are and

(35:45):
recognizing that certain truths exist beyond them. That recognition itself
is evidence of something beyond pure computation at work in
human consciousness. This mathematical proof ironically proves something about the
mathematicians who created it. It reveals that human understanding operates

(36:05):
on principles that go beyond mere information processing. We're not
just sophisticated biological computers. We have access to something that
artificial systems, no matter how advanced, might never possess, the
ability to grasp truths that cannot be reached through any
algorithmic path. Philosophers have argued for centuries about whether consciousness

(36:28):
is purely physical or involves something more. The materialist view
says that mind is just what the brain does, electrical signals,
chemical reactions, neurons firing, and patterns. Consciousness, from this perspective,
is computation happening in biological hardware instead of silicon chips.
There's nothing special about it, nothing that couldn't theoretically be replicated.

(36:50):
In a sufficiently advanced machine. But Godell's theorems applied to
consciousness itself demolish that view. They provide a mathematical argument
for what some philosophers call the non mechanical nature of mind.
Our ability to understand non algorithmic truths is evidence that
we ourselves are not purely algorithmic. And if consciousness can't

(37:14):
emerge from algorithms, can't be produced by computation, and can't
be explained by material processes alone, then where does it
come from? The evidence points towards something the materialist science
has long tried to avoid the necessity of a creator.

(37:34):
Human consciousness, with its ability to grasp non algorithmic truths,
represents something that cannot arise from purely physical processes. It
requires a source that itself operates beyond the limitations of
computation and matter, a mind behind mind itself. This isn't
going to appeal to ignorance or a god of the

(37:56):
gaps argument. Its a logical conclusion drawn from matter, mathematical proof.
If consciousness transcends computation, and if the material universe operates
according to computational principles, physics, equations, cause and effect deterministic
or probabilistic processes. Then consciousness cannot be fully explained as

(38:17):
an emergent property of matter. It requires something or someone
beyond the material realm to account for its existence. The
complexity and non algorithmic nature of the human mind doesn't
just suggest God's existence, it demands it something This profound,

(38:37):
this impossible to explain through natural processes alone, points directly
to supernatural origin. We're not accidents of evolution or emergent
properties of complex neural networks. We're created beings with minds
designed to access truths that transcend the physical universe itself.

(38:58):
We can see outside the algorithmic box because we were
made by someone who exists outside the algorithmic box, someone
who created both the universe and the beings capable of
understanding it in ways no mere computation ever could. Roger Penrose,
the Nobel Prize winning physicist, has long argued that consciousness

(39:19):
involves quantum processes in the brain that give us access
to non computable aspects of reality. Stuart Hamroff, an anesthesiologist
and consciousness researcher, has worked with Penrose on theories about
how consciousness might emerge from quantum effects in cellular structures
called microtubules. Their ideas remain controversial, and while they grapple

(39:40):
with the right question how does consciousness access non algorithmic truths,
they stop short of the full answer. Quantum mechanics, for
all its strangeness, still operates according to mathematical laws. It's
still physics. It still cannot explain how consciousness transcends computeri
unless something beyond physics is involved. The math doesn't just

(40:05):
tell us what consciousness isn't it points us toward what
it must be, something created by an intelligence that exists
beyond the constraints of the physical universe. It can't be
just algorithms running on biological hardware, whether classical or quantum.
There has to be something more, someone more, that creates

(40:26):
a fascinating hierarchy that all points in the same direction.
Computer simulations can't fully capture the universe because reality contains
non algorithmic elements that computation can't reach, elements that had
to be designed and implemented by a mind beyond computation.
AI systems can't achieve genuine consciousness if consciousness requires access

(40:50):
to those non algorithmic elements, elements that can only be
granted by a creator, and materialist theories that reduce consciousness
to pure computation can't explain how we're able to understand
that computation as limits an ability that reveals the stamp
of divine design. Each level of the argument reinforces the others.

(41:12):
The universe is provably not a simulation, It's a creation.
The machines we build are provably not conscious in the
way we are, because consciousness is a gift from God,
not an emergent property of complexity. And we are provably
not just biological computers. We are beings made in the
image of a creator who himself transcends all computational limits.

(41:37):
Reality is real because God made it real. Consciousness is
more than computation because God designed it to be. And we,
somehow mysteriously have access to truths that exist beyond what
any algorithm can ever reach, because we were created by
the one who established those truths in the first place.

(41:59):
We're not in the matrix. We're not sophisticated chatbots. We're
something stranger and more remarkable, beings created in the image
of God, capable of grasping truths that transcend the very
logic we use to discover them because our creator wanted
us to be able to know him and understand his creation.

(42:21):
That might be the most unsettling and wonderful implication of
all mathematics. The language of logic and reason, the tool
of skeptics and materialists, has provided proof not just that
we are real, but that we are designed, created, purposed.
The universe is not a program, we are not programs

(42:43):
running in it, and the fact that we can understand
why that's true is evidence of the divine fingerprint on
human consciousness itself. I did not start this episode ever
even thinking about spirituality or consciousness or computers becoming self aware.
I just found it interesting about the proof we're not

(43:03):
living in a simulation. But the further I got into this,
the more questions I had, the more digging I had
to do, the more times I had to stop and
then start again later, because it just became more and
more obvious that despite these scientists proving we're not living
in a simulation, they have inadvertently proved where the reality

(43:25):
we do live in came from and who created it.
The man. I love it when God takes me on
unexpected and unplanned journeys like this. Thanks for listening. If

(43:50):
you'd like to read the story for yourself, you can
read it on the Weird Darkness website. I've placed a
link to it in the episode description. While there, you
can also visit my Dark News blog stories that never
make it to the podcast. If you like the show,
please share it with someone you know who loves the
paranormal or strange stories, true crime, monsters, or unsolved mysteries

(44:11):
like you do. All stories used in Weird Darkness are
purported to be true unless stated otherwise. Weird Darkness is
a registered trademark copyright Weird Darkness. And now that we're
coming out of the dark, I'll leave you with a
little light Kalajan's one verses sixteen and seventeen. For by him,
all things were created in heaven and on Earth, visible

(44:33):
and invisible, Whether thrones or dominions, or rulers or authorities,
all things were created through him and for him. And
he is before all things, and in him all things
hold together. And a final thought, either mathematics is too
big for the human mind, or the human mind is

(44:54):
more than a machine. Kurk Goodell. I'm Darren Marler. Thanks
for joining me in the Weird darkness m