Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

The Philosophical Forum

A Unified Explanation of Quantum Phenomena? The Case for the Peer‐to‐Peer Simulation Hypothesis as an Interdisciplinary Research Program

Marcus Arvan

Published Oct 21, 2014• 8 citations
Publisher

Abstract

In my 2013 article, “A New Theory of Free Will”, I argued that several serious hypotheses in philosophy and modern physics jointly entail that our reality is structurally identical to a peer-to-peer (P2P) networked computer simulation. The present paper outlines how quantum phenomena emerge naturally from the computational structure of a P2P simulation. §1 explains the P2P Hypothesis. §2 then sketches how the structure of any P2P simulation realizes quantum superposition and wave-function collapse (§2.1.), quantum indeterminacy (§2.2.), wave-particle duality (§2.3.), and quantum entanglement (§2.4.). Finally, §3 argues that although this is by no means a philosophical proof that our reality is a P2P simulation, it provides ample reasons to investigate the hypothesis further using the methods of computer science, physics, philosophy, and mathematics.

DOI
10.1111/phil.12043

Related papers

A Unified Explanation of Quantum Phenomena? The Peer-to-Peer Simulation Hypothesis

Marcus Arvan

In my 2013 article in The Philosophical Forum, “A New Theory of Free Will”, I argued that several serious hypotheses in philosophy and modern physics jointly entail that our reality is structurally identical to a peer-to-peer (P2P) networked computer simulation. The present paper shows that quantum phenomena emerge naturally from the computational structure of a P2P simulation. §1 explains the P2P Hypothesis in detail. §2 then shows how it explains quantum superposition and wave-function collapse (§2.1.), quantum indeterminacy (§2.2.), wave-particle duality (§2.3.), and quantum entanglement (§2.4.).

•Feb 1, 2014•0 citations

The Peer-to-Peer Simulation Hypothesis and a New Theory of Free Will

Marcus Arvan

An overview of my work arguing that peer-to-peer computer networking (the Peer-to-Peer Simulation Hypothesis) may be the best explanation of quantum phenomena and a number of perennial philosophical problems.

•Jan 1, 2015•3 citations

A Unified Physical-Philosophical Explanation of Quantum Mechanics: The Peer-to-Peer Simulation Hypothesis

Marcus Arvan

•Jan 1, 2013•1 citation

Are We Living in a Simulation? What Quantum Physics and Advaita Vedanta Both Suggest

Narayan Rout

This article examines the simulation hypothesis (Bostrom N, Philosophical Quarterly 2003, 53(211):243-255), quantum physics evidence for observer-dependent and computational reality, and Advaita Vedanta’s Maya framework as three independent bodies of thought suggesting that ordinary physical reality does not have the independent, objective existence attributed to it. Simulation Hypothesis: Bostrom’s trilemma (extinction before maturity / loss of interest in simulations / we are simulated); statistical argument for simulated consciousness majority; Elon Musk popularisation; David Chalmers’ Reality+ (2022) — simulation as genuine reality. Quantum Physics evidence: (1) Quantisation at Planck scale (Planck length 1.616×10⁻³⁵ m; Planck time 5.39×10⁻⁴⁴ s) suggesting discrete computational substrate; (2) Observer-dependent wavefunction collapse — measurement problem — Copenhagen interpretation: reality constituted by observation; (3) Quantum entanglement and non-locality: Bell’s theorem (Bell 1964); Aspect et al. (1982); Hensen et al. loophole-free test (Nature 2015) — non-local correlations inconsistent with local hidden variables, consistent with shared underlying data structure; (4) Holographic principle: Bekenstein-Hawking entropy area proportionality (→ TQS-2026-211); ’t Hooft (1993); Susskind (1995); Maldacena AdS/CFT (1997): 3D physics as projection of 2D information; (5) Fine-tuning of physical constants — naturalness of parameter-setting in computational framework; (6) Wheeler’s ‘it from bit’ (participatory universe); Tegmark’s Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (2008). Advaita Vedanta: Maya (superimposition/adhyasa of apparent independence on Brahman); Vivartavada (Shankaracharya) — world as apparent transformation; Gaudapada’s Ajata-vada (non-origination: the world never truly began); Mandukya Upanishad four states; rope-snake analogy (rajju-sarpa nyaya); dream analogy (svapna drishthanta); Brahman as consciousness-substrate; Ishvara as cosmic projector; Tat tvam asi (you are That) — Jiva identical to Brahman. Three-way convergence table: computational nature, observer’s constitutive role, non-locality/non-duality, projection from more fundamental reality, consciousness as primary, resolution/liberation/escape. Critical differences: substrate (physical computer vs. consciousness); relation of beings to substrate (separate vs. identical); existence of external creator; radical depth of Ajata-vada vs. simulation theory. Governing thesis: all three frameworks converge on the inadequacy of the commonsense view of physical reality as independent, objective, and self-sustaining. Advaita’s framework is both the oldest and, in its implications for the nature of consciousness and the identity of the individual with the substrate, the most radical.

•Aug 12, 2026•0 citations

Advaita Vedanta and Modern Science: 5 Places Where Ancient Non-Duality and Quantum Physics Reach the Same Conclusion

Narayan Rout

Advaita Vedanta — the philosophical system articulated in its classical form by Adi Shankaracharya in the 8th century CE, drawing on the Upanishads, the Brahma Sutras, and the Bhagavad Gita — holds that ultimate reality is non-dual: that beneath the apparent multiplicity of the phenomenal world lies a single, undivided, self-luminous consciousness (Brahman), and that the individual self (Atman) is not separate from this ground of being but identical with it. This is, on its face, a metaphysical claim. What is remarkable — and what this article examines — is how consistently the findings of 20th and 21st century physics have converged on structural parallels to this position, not through cultural influence but through independent empirical investigation. Drawing on quantum entanglement (the non-local correlation of particles across spatial separation), the measurement problem and the role of observation in wave function collapse, David Bohm's implicate order theory, the holographic principle in modern cosmology, and the hard problem of consciousness in neuroscience and philosophy of mind, the article traces five specific points of convergence between Advaita Vedanta and modern physics. The research is careful to distinguish genuine structural parallels from loose analogical thinking — neither conflating physics with metaphysics nor dismissing the parallels as coincidental. The conclusion argues that Advaita Vedanta and quantum physics, approaching the nature of reality from radically different methodological directions, have arrived at mutually illuminating positions that deserve serious interdisciplinary attention.

•Jun 18, 2026•0 citations

A Philosophical Explanation of Quantum Phenomena? The Peer-to-Peer (P2P) Simulation Hypothesis

Marcus Arvan

•Jan 1, 2014•0 citations
In my 2013 article, “A New Theory of Free Will”, I argued that several serious hypotheses in philosophy and modern physics jointly entail that our reality is structurally identical to a peer-to-peer (P2P) networked computer simulation. The present paper outlines how quantum phenomena emerge naturally from the computational structure of a P2P simulation. §1 explains the P2P Hypothesis. §2 then sketches how the structure of any P2P simulation realizes quantum superposition and wave-function collapse (§2.1.), quantum indeterminacy (§2.2.), wave-particle duality (§2.3.), and quantum entanglement (§2.4.). Finally, §3 argues that although this is by no means a philosophical proof that our reality is a P2P simulation, it provides ample reasons to investigate the hypothesis further using the methods of computer science, physics, philosophy, and mathematics.
In my 2013 article in The Philosophical Forum, “A New Theory of Free Will”, I argued that several serious hypotheses in philosophy and modern physics jointly entail that our reality is structurally identical to a peer-to-peer (P2P) networked computer simulation. The present paper shows that quantum phenomena emerge naturally from the computational structure of a P2P simulation. §1 explains the P2P Hypothesis in detail. §2 then shows how it explains quantum superposition and wave-function collapse (§2.1.), quantum indeterminacy (§2.2.), wave-particle duality (§2.3.), and quantum entanglement (§2.4.).
This article examines the simulation hypothesis (Bostrom N, Philosophical Quarterly 2003, 53(211):243-255), quantum physics evidence for observer-dependent and computational reality, and Advaita Vedanta’s Maya framework as three independent bodies of thought suggesting that ordinary physical reality does not have the independent, objective existence attributed to it. Simulation Hypothesis: Bostrom’s trilemma (extinction before maturity / loss of interest in simulations / we are simulated); statistical argument for simulated consciousness majority; Elon Musk popularisation; David Chalmers’ Reality+ (2022) — simulation as genuine reality. Quantum Physics evidence: (1) Quantisation at Planck scale (Planck length 1.616×10⁻³⁵ m; Planck time 5.39×10⁻⁴⁴ s) suggesting discrete computational substrate; (2) Observer-dependent wavefunction collapse — measurement problem — Copenhagen interpretation: reality constituted by observation; (3) Quantum entanglement and non-locality: Bell’s theorem (Bell 1964); Aspect et al. (1982); Hensen et al. loophole-free test (Nature 2015) — non-local correlations inconsistent with local hidden variables, consistent with shared underlying data structure; (4) Holographic principle: Bekenstein-Hawking entropy area proportionality (→ TQS-2026-211); ’t Hooft (1993); Susskind (1995); Maldacena AdS/CFT (1997): 3D physics as projection of 2D information; (5) Fine-tuning of physical constants — naturalness of parameter-setting in computational framework; (6) Wheeler’s ‘it from bit’ (participatory universe); Tegmark’s Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (2008). Advaita Vedanta: Maya (superimposition/adhyasa of apparent independence on Brahman); Vivartavada (Shankaracharya) — world as apparent transformation; Gaudapada’s Ajata-vada (non-origination: the world never truly began); Mandukya Upanishad four states; rope-snake analogy (rajju-sarpa nyaya); dream analogy (svapna drishthanta); Brahman as consciousness-substrate; Ishvara as cosmic projector; Tat tvam asi (you are That) — Jiva identical to Brahman. Three-way convergence table: computational nature, observer’s constitutive role, non-locality/non-duality, projection from more fundamental reality, consciousness as primary, resolution/liberation/escape. Critical differences: substrate (physical computer vs. consciousness); relation of beings to substrate (separate vs. identical); existence of external creator; radical depth of Ajata-vada vs. simulation theory. Governing thesis: all three frameworks converge on the inadequacy of the commonsense view of physical reality as independent, objective, and self-sustaining. Advaita’s framework is both the oldest and, in its implications for the nature of consciousness and the identity of the individual with the substrate, the most radical.
Advaita Vedanta — the philosophical system articulated in its classical form by Adi Shankaracharya in the 8th century CE, drawing on the Upanishads, the Brahma Sutras, and the Bhagavad Gita — holds that ultimate reality is non-dual: that beneath the apparent multiplicity of the phenomenal world lies a single, undivided, self-luminous consciousness (Brahman), and that the individual self (Atman) is not separate from this ground of being but identical with it. This is, on its face, a metaphysical claim. What is remarkable — and what this article examines — is how consistently the findings of 20th and 21st century physics have converged on structural parallels to this position, not through cultural influence but through independent empirical investigation. Drawing on quantum entanglement (the non-local correlation of particles across spatial separation), the measurement problem and the role of observation in wave function collapse, David Bohm's implicate order theory, the holographic principle in modern cosmology, and the hard problem of consciousness in neuroscience and philosophy of mind, the article traces five specific points of convergence between Advaita Vedanta and modern physics. The research is careful to distinguish genuine structural parallels from loose analogical thinking — neither conflating physics with metaphysics nor dismissing the parallels as coincidental. The conclusion argues that Advaita Vedanta and quantum physics, approaching the nature of reality from radically different methodological directions, have arrived at mutually illuminating positions that deserve serious interdisciplinary attention.