Provability vs. Execution: A Comment on "Consequences of Undecidability in Physics on the Theory of Everything"

Evan Redden

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2512.11807

Provability vs. Execution: A Comment on "Consequences of Undecidability in Physics on the Theory of Everything"

Evan Redden

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Recent work by Faizal et al. (2025) claims that Gödelian undecidability of non-algorithmic truths in our universe imply the impossibility of a formal, algorithmic simulation of the universe. This paper clarifies the distinction between epistemic incompleteness: limits on what can be proven within a formal system, and ontological incompleteness: limits on what can exist or be computed by that system. Using Conway's Game of Life as a Turing-complete example, I demonstrate that undecidability constrains provability but not computability or execution. Unless physical phenomena require the resolution of undecidable propositions, incompleteness alone does not imply a guaranteed failure in execution. Thus, the claim that the universe cannot be simulated lacks empirical and logical justification without evidence of hypercomputation in nature.

Explore related subjects

physics.hist-ph

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Evan Redden. 2025-11-14. Provability vs. Execution: A Comment on "Consequences of Undecidability in Physics on the Theory of Everything". https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.11807

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Deriving Ontological Statements from the Unnatural Higgs Mass

We provide novel, metatheoretical arguments strengthening the position that the naturalness problem of the light Higgs mass is a pseudo-problem: Under one assumption, no physics beyond the standard model of particle physics is needed to explain the small value of the Higgs boson. By evaluating previous successes of the guiding principle of technical naturalness, we restrict its applicability to non-fundamental phenomena in the realm of provisional theories within limited energy scales. In view of further breaches of autonomy of scales in apparently fundamental phenomena outside particle physics, the hierarchy problem of the Higgs mass is instead reinterpreted as an indication of the ontologically fundamental status of the Higgs boson. Applying the concept of robustness of theoretical elements under theory changes by Worrall and Williams justifies this seemingly contradictory attribution within the effective theories of the standard model of particle physics. Moreover, we argue that the ongoing naturalness debate about the Higgs mass is partly based on the adherence to the methodology of effective theories (often claimed to be universally applicable), for which there is no justification when dealing with presumably fundamental phenomena such as the Higgs mechanism, even if it is embedded into an effective theory.

physics.hist-ph↗

arXiv2026

Stagnant Lakatosian Research Programmes

We propose an extension of the classical dichotomous categorization of research programmes into progress and degeneration according to Lakatos in the form of a neutral third category: the stagnant research programme. First, a critical examination of the primary literature with its often criticized definitional gaps justifies such a category. Through a generic derivation of criteria for stagnant programmes, a clear demarcation from progressive and degenerative ones is achieved. An empirical cross-check is subsequently employed for support: Both a series of examples from fundamental physics and a general analysis of today's research landscape also suggest on an empirical level the need to go beyond the traditional Lakatosian conception. Attributing stagnation is entirely in line with Lakatos' original intentions, which aimed not to hastily discard promising research but to exercise patience until the lifting of certain external constraints potentially enables progress once again.

physics.hist-ph↗

arXiv2026

A not-too-simple solution to Goodman's New Riddle of induction

I review the works of Gärdenfors (1990) and Scorzato (2013) and show that their combination provides an elegant solution of Goodman's new riddle of induction. The solution is based on two main ideas: (1) clarifying what is expected from a solution: understanding that philosophy of science is a science itself, with the same limitations and strengths as other scientific disciplines; (2) understanding that the concept of complexity of a model's assumptions and the concept of direct measurements must be characterized together. Although both measurements and complexity have been the subject of a vast literature, within the philosophy of science, essentially no other attempt has been made to combine them. The widespread expectation, among modern philosophers, that Goodman's new riddle cannot be solved is not defensible without a serious exploration of such a natural approach. A clarification of this riddle has always been very important, but it has become even more crucial in the age of AI.

physics.hist-ph↗