I recently came across a long argument about consciousness, quantum physics, and the nature of reality that ended in a place I did not expect.
The central claim was that the Simulation Hypothesis is too small. We spend our time asking whether the world around us is made of atoms or code, whether there is some computer somewhere running all of this, and whether we are characters inside a reality generated from another level. According to the argument, that entire discussion misses the larger problem because it assumes there is a solid “you” sitting inside whatever reality happens to exist.
The argument then turns the question around. What if consciousness itself is fundamental? What if the physical world is something consciousness experiences rather than the thing that produces consciousness?
If that is true, the argument goes, simulation theory more or less collapses.
I have been sitting with that for a while because I find quite a bit of the argument compelling. I just do not think the final step follows.
In fact, I think consciousness being fundamental could fit surprisingly well with a broader version of the Simulation Hypothesis. It would change what we mean by simulation, perhaps considerably, but it would not make the basic idea disappear.
The Part That Gets My Attention
There is something strange about the world physics has uncovered.
The solid, mechanical universe people once imagined is long gone. At the quantum level, we describe systems using probabilities, fields, interactions, and mathematical relationships that do not behave much like the ordinary objects of everyday experience.
Carlo Rovelli’s relational interpretation of quantum mechanics goes further. In his formulation, the state of a physical system is relational. Properties are described relative to interactions with other physical systems rather than from some absolute, external viewpoint.
That does not prove consciousness creates reality, and it does not prove we are living in a simulation. What it does show is that the old picture of a universe made up of independent little objects carrying permanent properties around with them is not as secure as it once seemed.
Then there is the role that information keeps playing in fundamental physics.
The holographic principle grew out of work on black holes and the relationship between information, entropy, area, and gravity. Leonard Susskind and others developed the idea that a three-dimensional physical description might have an equivalent lower-dimensional informational description. That is real theoretical physics, although it is a long way from proving that our universe is a computer-generated hologram.
Still, information keeps appearing in places where we once expected only matter. Relationships keep appearing. The possibility that space, matter, and perhaps other things we take to be fundamental might instead emerge from something deeper continues to come up.
I have written before about quantum mechanics looking surprisingly comfortable when viewed through a computational lens, and I still think that is worth considering. But analogy has to remain analogy. A wavefunction is not proof of lazy rendering by a cosmic graphics card, and quantum uncertainty is not evidence that reality only loads when someone looks at it.
The actual physics is interesting enough without turning it into a software metaphor every time something strange happens.
Where I Think the Argument Goes Too Far
This is where I part company with some of the claims in the argument that started me thinking about all this.
Bell’s theorem and the experiments that followed it are often described online as proving that particles do not possess properties until somebody looks at them. That is much too strong. What the experiments established is the violation of Bell inequalities, creating serious problems for local hidden-variable theories of the kind Bell was testing.
That result is strange enough on its own. We do not need to make it say more than it says.
The same thing happens with Wheeler’s delayed-choice experiments. They are sometimes described as showing that something we decide to measure today changes what a photon did yesterday. It is a wonderful line, but it is a questionable description of the physics. Delayed-choice experiments can be accounted for using ordinary quantum mechanics without requiring the present to literally rewrite the past.
Benjamin Libet’s experiments get similar treatment. Libet found neural activity associated with movement appearing before subjects reported becoming consciously aware of deciding to move. The result became famous as evidence that conscious free will might be an illusion.
Later work has complicated that interpretation. Some models treat the readiness potential partly as the accumulation of spontaneous neural activity leading toward a threshold rather than as evidence that the brain secretly made a decision before consciousness became aware of it.
Again, the actual result is interesting enough.
I do not think we help ourselves by turning unsettled questions into established facts, especially when discussing something as speculative as the Simulation Hypothesis. If the argument only works when every unusual result in physics is pushed to its most dramatic interpretation, then the argument is not very strong.
Fortunately, I do not think the Simulation Hypothesis needs that kind of help.
Consciousness Is the Harder Problem
The strongest part of the argument, for me, has very little to do with quantum mechanics. It is consciousness.
We can correlate states of consciousness with activity in the brain. We can alter consciousness by altering the brain. We can watch anesthesia remove ordinary awareness, and we can see brain injury change personality, memory, perception, and behavior.
What remains difficult is explaining why any of that processing should feel like something from the inside.
Why should information processing produce experience? Why should a particular pattern of neural activity contain redness, pain, embarrassment, the smell of coffee, or the feeling of remembering someone who died twenty years ago?
Calling consciousness “emergent” describes a position, but it does not yet explain why subjective experience exists. We can explain an enormous amount about what the brain does without explaining why there is something it feels like to be the person whose brain is doing it.
This is where analytic idealism becomes interesting.
Bernardo Kastrup’s version starts with consciousness rather than matter. Universal consciousness is fundamental, while individual minds and the physical world are appearances or structures within it.
I am not saying he has proved that. He has not. But it is a legitimate philosophical reversal of the usual problem.
Instead of asking how unconscious matter somehow produces consciousness, analytic idealism asks how consciousness could produce the appearance of matter.
That changes the discussion considerably, and this is where the Simulation Hypothesis runs into its real challenge.
The Problem for Bostrom
Nick Bostrom’s original simulation argument depends on an important assumption that sometimes gets buried underneath the statistics. Simulated people have to actually be conscious.
Bostrom’s argument asks us to imagine technologically mature civilizations running enormous numbers of ancestor simulations populated by beings having experiences like ours. If those simulated observers vastly outnumber biological observers in base reality, then there is a statistical argument for thinking we are probably among the simulated observers.
But suppose consciousness cannot be generated merely by running the right computation. Then the numbers fall apart.
You could have trillions of simulated people talking, marrying, fighting wars, writing novels, staring at stars, and wondering whether they live in a simulation, while none of them are actually experiencing anything.
They would behave like observers without being observers in the only sense that ultimately matters.
I have written about this before when discussing substrate-independence because I think it is one of the most important assumptions underneath Bostrom’s argument. If consciousness depends on carbon biology, or on some other property that cannot be reproduced computationally, then the ancestor-simulation argument has a serious problem.
Analytic idealism therefore does create genuine trouble for one particular version of simulation theory. I do not think we should dodge that.
But that still does not mean the broader Simulation Hypothesis disappears.
What If the Simulation Exists Inside Consciousness?
Suppose Kastrup is broadly right and consciousness is fundamental. Individual conscious beings are then localized perspectives within some much larger field of experience.
Now imagine that what we call physical reality is an organized informational environment within that consciousness. It has rules, stable relationships, apparent space and time, informational limits, and individual perspectives that experience themselves as separate beings moving through a shared external world.
At that point, we have described something remarkably close to a simulation.
The difference is the substrate.
Instead of consciousness appearing inside a computer-generated universe, the computer-like universe appears inside consciousness.
That is a substantial change, and it may mean that “computer simulation” becomes the wrong phrase altogether. Our idea of a computer comes from machines that exist inside this reality. Whatever generates this reality, if anything does, may bear no resemblance to servers, processors, memory chips, or code.
Those are our metaphors, and metaphors have limits.
A Roman trying to imagine an automobile might have pictured some kind of mechanical horse. He could understand the idea that a machine might move a person from one place to another without understanding the mechanism at all. His mistake would not be in recognizing the possibility. His mistake would be in assuming that the machinery had to resemble what he already knew.
We may be doing the same thing with computation.
When we say the universe is computational, perhaps “computation” is simply the closest concept available to a species that has only recently learned how to build computers. The deeper principle could be information, relationships, state changes, experience, or something we do not yet have a useful word for.
Then Is It Still a Simulation?
This is partly a question of definitions.
If a simulation requires an Intel processor somewhere in base reality executing software, then perhaps not.
If simulation means that the world we experience is a generated environment whose apparent physical properties emerge from a deeper level of reality, then the idea remains very much alive.
There might still be layers of reality. There might still be something analogous to base reality. There might still be rules governing what can happen inside our layer that do not apply outside it.
There might still be an explanation for why mathematics describes our universe so effectively, and there might still be something responsible for initiating or maintaining the environment.
We simply should not assume that whatever lies beneath our reality is a programmer sitting at a keyboard.
Over time, I have become less interested in picturing what the machine might look like. That picture is probably wrong anyway.
The more interesting question is whether the reality we experience is fundamental.
On that question, I do not think consciousness-first theories weaken the Simulation Hypothesis nearly as much as they first appear to. They may simply force us to stop thinking about simulation in the narrowest possible terms.
Maybe We Have Been Putting Consciousness in the Wrong Place
One thing I especially liked about the argument that started all this was its challenge to the idea of the self.
Simulation discussions often picture us as characters inside a game. There is the world, there is the program generating the world, and here I am, some conscious little entity moving around inside it.
But what is the “I” in that picture?
Where exactly is the experiencer?
We can describe memories, personality, neural activity, perception, attention, decision-making, and behavior. Yet there remains the basic fact that experience is happening.
Maybe consciousness is produced by the simulated brain. Maybe consciousness is something the brain receives or localizes. Maybe consciousness and the simulated structure are two ways of describing the same underlying process.
I do not know, and I do not think anyone else does either.
That uncertainty does not bother me. I would rather leave an honest gap than fill it with a confident story.
The Simulation Hypothesis May Be Bigger Than the Computer Metaphor
I still find the Simulation Hypothesis logically compelling.
That does not mean I think quantum physics proves it. It does not. It does not mean the holographic principle proves we are living on somebody’s hard drive. It does not. It certainly does not mean every unexplained feature of consciousness is evidence of hidden source code.
The hypothesis interests me because it asks a simpler and more durable question: what if the reality we experience is not the fundamental level?
Once that possibility is admitted, many other questions follow naturally. What is matter? What is information? What is consciousness? Does base reality even resemble this one? Could consciousness exist across different substrates? Could reality consist of nested layers? Could what we call physical law be the internal rule set of one particular level?
Analytic idealism does not close those questions. It adds another one.
What if consciousness is not one of the things being simulated? What if consciousness is part of whatever makes simulation possible in the first place?
That is where the discussion becomes more interesting to me.
Maybe we have spent too much time wondering what kind of computer could contain the universe. We may eventually discover that “computer” was never the important part of the idea.
The important part was always the possibility that the world in front of us is not the bottom layer.
After everything physics and philosophy have shown us about how strange the words world, matter, observer, and consciousness become when examined closely, I see very little reason to assume that it is.
Like My Work? Want an Easy Way to Support Me?
Hi there! If you’ve enjoyed my work why not click the link below and Buy Me A Coffee? It’s simple and coffee keeps my creative and intellectual juices flowing!
Just click on the image below and it’ll take you to my Buy Me A Coffee page. Thanks so much for reading and supporting me!
