This paper surveys evidence and arguments for the proposition that the universe as we know it is not a physical, material world but a computer-generated simulation -- a kind of virtual reality. The evidence is drawn from the observations of natural phenomena in the realm of quantum mechanics. The arguments are drawn from philosophy and from the results of experiment. While the experiments discussed are not conclusive in this regard, they are found to be consistent with a computer model of the universe. Six categories of quantum puzzles are examined: quantum waves, the measurement effect (including the uncertainty principle), the equivalence of quantum units, discontinuity, non-locality, and the overall relationship of natural phenomena to the mathematical formalism. Many of the phenomena observed in the laboratory are puzzling because they are difficult to conceptualize as physical phenomena, yet they can be modeled exactly by mathematical manipulations. When we analogize to the operations of a digital computer, these same phenomena can be understood as logical and, in some cases, necessary features of computer programming designed to produce a virtual reality simulation for the benefit of the user.
This paper surveys evidence and arguments for the proposition that the universe as we know it is not a physical, material world but a computer-generated simulation -- a kind of virtual reality. The evidence is drawn from the observations of natural phenomena in the realm of quantum mechanics. The arguments are drawn from philosophy and from the results of experiment. While the experiments discussed are not conclusive in this regard, they are found to be consistent with a computer model of the universe. Six categories of quantum puzzles are examined: quantum waves, the measurement effect (including the uncertainty principle), the equivalence of quantum units, discontinuity, non-locality, and the overall relationship of natural phenomena to the mathematical formalism. Many of the phenomena observed in the laboratory are puzzling because they are difficult to conceptualize as physical phenomena, yet they can be modeled exactly by mathematical manipulations. When we analogize to the operations of a digital computer, these same phenomena can be understood as logical and, in some cases, necessary features of computer programming designed to produce a virtual reality simulation for the benefit of the user.
Any computer can create a model of reality. The hypothesis that quantum computer can generate such a model designated as quantum, which coincides with the modeled reality, is discussed. Its reasons are the theorems about the absence of “hidden variables” in quantum mechanics. The quantum modeling requires the axiom of choice. The following conclusions are deduced from the hypothesis. A quantum model unlike a classical model can coincide with reality. Reality can be interpreted as a quantum computer. The physical processes represent computations of the quantum computer. Quantum information is the real fundament of the world. The conception of quantum computer unifies physics and mathematics and thus the material and the ideal world. Quantum computer is a non-Turing machine in principle. Any quantum computing can be interpreted as an infinite classical computational process of a Turing machine. Quantum computer introduces the notion of “actually infinite computational process”. The discussed hypothesis is consistent with all quantum mechanics. The conclusions address a form of neo-Pythagoreanism: Unifying the mathematical and physical, quantum computer is situated in an intermediate domain of their mutual transformation.
Abstract Quantum mechanics (QM) has led to spectacular technological developments, including the discovery of new constituents of matter and new materials: however, there is still no consensus regarding its interpretation and limitations. Some scientists and scientific writers promote some exotic interpretations and evoke quantum magic. In this paper we point out that magical explanations mean the end of the science. Magical explanations are misleading and counterproductive. We explain how a simple probabilistic local causal model is able to reproduce quantum correlations in Bell tests. We also discuss the difficulties of mathematical modeling of the physical reality and dangers of incorrect mental images. We examine in detail when and how a probabilistic model may completely describe a random experiment. We give some arguments in favor of the contextual statistical interpretation of QM. We conclude that we still do not know whether quantum theory provides a complete description of physical phenomena and we explain how it may be tested. We also point out, that there remain several open questions and challenges in QM, in quantum field theory and in the Standard Model. Moreover, there is still no consensus about how to reconcile quantum theory with general relativity and cosmology.
This is one of my publications as Berry Aarts being an independent Researcher. This work explores an interpretative perspective on quantum mechanics, focusing on the relationship between measurement, probability, and physical reality. Rather than proposing a modification of the mathematical formalism, it examines whether the probabilistic description of quantum phenomena may be understood as epistemic rather than ontological. A conceptual framework of a “static universe” is introduced, in which all physical states are considered part of a single, fixed totality. Within this perspective, measurement outcomes are interpreted as revealing aspects of an already determined structure, rather than generating them. This paper positions itself within ongoing discussions on the interpretation of quantum mechanics and aims to contribute to the dialogue on determinism, observer-dependence, and the nature of reality.
This chapter describes the possibility of simulating physics in the classical approximation, a thing which is usually described by local differential equations. But the physical world is quantum mechanical, and therefore the proper problem is the simulation of quantum physics. A computer which will give the same probabilities as the quantum system does. The present theory of physics allows space to go down into infinitesimal distances, wavelengths to get infinitely great, terms to be summed in infinite order, and so forth; and therefore, if this proposition is right, physical law is wrong. Quantum theory and quantizing is a very specific type of theory. The chapter talks about the possibility that there is to be an exact simulation, that the computer will do exactly the same as nature. There are interesting philosophical questions about reasoning, and relationship, observation, and measurement and so on, which computers have stimulated people to think about anew, with new types of thinking.
It is well known that quantum physics deals with phenomena characterized by uncertainty. A typical expression of this uncertainty is the uncertainty principle, where, the more precisely we know the position of a particle, the more imprecisely we know its momentum (and vice versa).Opinions are divided as to whether this epistemological uncertainty is also an ontological uncertainty. Of some relevance here is the following observation by Quentin Smith: Heisenberg originally interpreted [the uncertainty] epistemically, but Bohr convinced him in private communications to accept a verificationist metaphysics, with its attendant ontological interpretation of the uncertainty relations (Smith 2002, 137) There are many competing interpretations of the quantum mechanical mathematical formalism. Of these interpretations, particularly well-known are the so-called Copenhagen interpretation of Bohr (where it is asserted that the position-view and the momentum-view of reality are complementary, and cannot be considered in the same context), and the many-universes interpretation of Hugh Everett. Roughly speaking, the latter asserts that whenever a measurement is made of a particle, the universe splits into copies, each one of which corresponds to the different possible outcomes of the measurement. Many scientists are happy to work with the many-universes interpretation-provided that their working with the theory has no ontological commitment. That is, they are not prepared to believe that the many universes actually exist. David Deutsch, who is one of the leading researchers in the field of quantum computation, is an exception. Indeed, he is the main advocate of the reality of the many universes; and he provides a number of important reasons why he is such an advocate. In the present essay, I intend to look at the arguments for and the arguments against the existence of the many universes, clarifying along the way what the meaning of exist in this regard should be considered to be. A first conclusion will be that while Deutsch's arguments are highly persuasive, there is one telling objection to the existence of the many universes-or multiverse, as the collection of them is becoming known-that must be addressed. My procedure then will be to show that the objection can in fact be met, using the so-called methodological solipsism approach introduced by Hans Driesch and employed subsequently by such theorists as Fodor and Putnam. The Many-Universes Interpretation of Quantum Physics It is not my intention in this essay to become bogged down in the minutiae of quantum physics, where the complexities of the mathematics are exacerbated by the lack of any single way of interpreting it. However, in order to provide a background for my subsequent arguments, I shall discuss briefly a typical and familiar quantum-mechanical scenario: the so-called experiment. My account is based on that of Penrose (1985). The results that may be expected in a performance of the two-slit experiment depend on the fact that sub-microscopic particles, such as electrons or photons, behave sometimes like particles and sometimes like waves. The experiment is simple to describe: typically, a beam of light is directed through a pair of closely-separated and parallel narrow slits to a screen located behind it. Penrose describes the scenario as follows (it is worth quoting him at length): The most evident manifestation of the light as particles . . occurs at the screen. The light arrives there in discrete localized units of energy.. .. Never is the energy of just half a photon... received. Light reception is an all-or-nothing phenomenon in photon units. Only whole numbers of photons are ever seen. However, a wavelike behaviour seems to arise as the photons pass through the slits. Suppose, first, that only one slit is open (the other being blocked off). After passing through, the light will spread out-by. …
Summary: Why does reality remain stable?Physics successfully describes how systems evolve, yet a more fundamental question remains largely unexplored: why do stable structures exist at all?Why does one informational configuration become a persistent physical object while countless alternative possibilities never stabilize? This paper proposes a common stabilization mechanism underlying quantum decoherence, Fourier analysis, machine learning, recursive systems, biological regulation, logical exclusion and language. This work may be of interest to researchers in: quantum foundations information theory complex systems logic computational physics machine learning philosophy of physics This manuscript develops the NNO operator step by step, examines its structural parallels across multiple disciplines, and discusses its implications for observer-relative reality, antimatter, and quantum spin. Description: The NNO Stabilization Operator This paper introduces the NNO operator (Negation–Negation–Oscillation), a minimal conceptual mechanism describing how informational configurations become stable and persistent through observation. Its central idea is straightforward: reality does not emerge simply because information accumulates. It emerges because informational configurations repeatedly survive confrontation with incompatible alternatives relative to the observer. Any direct interaction introduces orientation and polarity, which in turn generate a conjugate alternative. A single negation leaves an active ambiguity relative to the informational evolution of an observer. Stabilization therefore requires two inseparable and complementary mechanisms combined into one conceptual operator: Double Negation — a two-step exclusion process requiring a configuration to remain coherent after confrontation with its logical inverse and that of the observer. Oscillation — phase alternation that progressively removes dependence on origin, scale, and monotonic accumulation, leaving only phase-invariant informational structures. Within this framework, stable reality corresponds to informational patterns that remain invariant under repeated exclusion and phase alternation relative to an observer, validating informational structures across successive observations rather than merely selecting a local configuration. Background Although developed independently, remarkably similar stabilization processes appear throughout science and mathematics. Examples include: quantum decoherence and phase scrambling signal processing and Fourier phase integration renormalization and universality logical systems based on exclusion (NAND, NOR, intuitionistic logic) machine learning optimization, convergence and loss-driven exclusion recursive dynamical systems and fractal invariants biological regulation through oscillatory turnover and selective instability semantic stabilization in language and cognition Despite their different formalisms, all of these mechanisms progressively eliminate unstable possibilities until only robust, observer-relative structures remain.This work argues that these apparently unrelated phenomena may represent different manifestations of the same underlying informational principle. Main implications Within this framework, the NNO operator provides an informational interpretation of: observer-relative reality quantum decoherence phase-dependent emergence and stabilization of physical structures phase invariance exclusion-based stabilization persistence of informational structures A companion paper extends these ideas to quantum spin and phase-dependent observer effects. The paper further examines orientation-reversed invariants as a necessary boundary case for any stabilization operator, showing that NNO stabilization remains valid under inverted informational orientation. Within this perspective, antimatter can be described as the stabilization of the same informational structure under inverted orientation. This proposition is consistent with CPT symmetry and the Feynman–Stueckelberg interpretation, without invoking literal backward time propagation. Scope of this work This article is intentionally conceptual. It does not propose a new mathematical formalism or seek to replace established physical theories. Instead, it identifies a minimal stabilization mechanism that appears implicitly across numerous successful theoretical frameworks and proposes a unified informational interpretation of their common logic. The objective is to provide a conceptual foundation for future: mathematical formalization computational modeling independent verification cross-disciplinary investigation As such, the author welcomes constructive discussion, independent verification, mathematical formalization, and interdisciplinary collaboration. Relation to other work This publication constitutes the second major conceptual component of the Universal Theory of Information (TUI) research program. The current sequence consists of: The Universal Theory of Information (TUI): Emergence of Physics from Informational DynamicsInformational foundations of space, time, mass, gravity, and physical reality. Doi: 10.5281/zenodo.15106945 The NNO OperatorStabilization of informational structures through double negation and oscillation. Spin as a Signature of Information ExclusionInformational interpretation of quantum spin and observer-dependent phase stabilization. (Doi: 10.5281/zenodo.18443042 This paper can be read independently, but reaches its full coherence when considered as part of the TUI–NNO–SPIN conceptual sequence.Together, these works propose a unified informational framework in which physical reality emerges from discrete informational interactions, while stable structures arise through recursive stabilization rather than accumulation alone. About the author Mathieu Valentin Rondet is an independent researcher investigating the informational foundations of physical reality through the Universal Theory of Information (TUI) research program. He holds two master's degrees in molecular biology, developmental biology, genetics, and biochemistry, completed in France and the United States. His academic background is complemented by more than twenty years of professional experience developing physically based simulations, procedural systems, and complex dynamic environments for the visual effects industry. His research combines concepts from information theory, complex systems, computational modeling, logic, and physics to investigate observer-relative informational structures and the emergence of stable physical phenomena. If the proposed stabilization mechanism does capture a genuine cross-domain invariant, it could provide a common conceptual foundation linking informational persistence across logic, computation, biology, and fundamental physics.