We modify the simulation hypothesis to a self-simulation hypothesis, where the physical universe, as a strange loop, is a mental self-simulation that might exist as one of a broad class of possible code theoretic quantum gravity models of reality obeying the principle of efficient language axiom. This leads to ontological interpretations about quantum mechanics. We also discuss some implications of the self-simulation hypothesis such as an informational arrow of time.
We modify the simulation hypothesis to a self-simulation hypothesis, where the physical universe, as a strange loop, is a mental self-simulation that might exist as one of a broad class of possible code theoretic quantum gravity models of reality obeying the principle of efficient language axiom. This leads to ontological interpretations about quantum mechanics. We also discuss some implications of the self-simulation hypothesis such as an informational arrow of time.
This paper proposes the Self-Computing Universe Hypothesis (SCUH), a novel theoretical framework that integrates quantum mechanics, the philosophy of time, and the role of consciousness. Unlike traditional interpretations where consciousness is seen as a passive observer, SCUH posits that consciousness actively selects reality from a field of quantum possibilities within a dynamic, multidirectional temporal structure. We argue that what appears as randomness in quantum mechanics is a manifestation of deeper computational dynamics, and that time itself is not linear but a fluid medium navigated by conscious agency.
In 2005, an essay was published in Nature asserting that the universe is mental and that we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things. Since then, experiments have confirmed that — as predicted by quantum mechanics — reality is contextual, which contradicts at least intuitive formulations of realism and corroborates the hypothesis of a mental universe. Yet, to give this hypothesis a coherent rendering, one must explain how a mental universe can — at least in principle — accommodate (a) our experience of ourselves as distinct individual minds sharing a world beyond the control of our volition; and (b) the empirical fact that this world is contextual despite being seemingly shared. By combining a modern formulation of the ontology of idealism with the relational interpretation of quantum mechanics, the present paper attempts to provide a viable explanatory framework for both points. In the process of doing so, the paper also addresses key philosophical qualms of the relational interpretation.
This paper introduces a new framework, the Metamaterial Fluidic Cosmology (MFC), whichproposes a physical mechanism for both quantum and relativistic phenomena. The theory postulatesthat physical reality emerges from a discrete spatial lattice, the result of a "sampling" processat Planck-time intervals of a non-local and atemporal potential domain, termed the Metaverse.By postulating a granular spacetime, the theory provides a potential physical andmechanistic counterpart to the mathematical structures of Loop Quantum Gravity(LQG). This view aligns with Digital Physics and the Simulation Hypothesis, whiledistinguishing itself by proposing a specific physical substrate: a perfect superfluid withimaginary mass ("meta-matter"), generated by the collapse of tachyonic entities, which permeatesour universe.In this model, quantum phenomena such as entanglement and uncertainty are not paradoxesbut direct consequences of the sampling process. Entanglement emerges as a single coherent entitywithin the Metaverse, while "wave-function collapse" is the registration of a potentiality into asingle "frame" of reality. The theory also explains the origin of the arrow of time and entropy as anemergent and irreversible effect. Finally, it speculatively proposes a non-causal role of consciousnessin the creation of reality.This work establishes the conceptual foundations for a new ontology of physics; subsequentapplications to gravity, electromagnetism, and the unification of Relativity and Quantum Mechanicswill be addressed in forthcoming papers.
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.
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.
A potentially new interpretation of quantum mechanics posits the state of the universe as a consistent set of facts, such that the relationships between objects in the universe are the information storing and instantiating those facts. A fact (or event) occurs exactly when the number or density of future possibilities decreases, and a quantum superposition exists if and only if the facts of the universe are consistent with the superposition. An example is analyzed in which the number of possibilities of N distinguishable classical objects in a discretized phase space is reduced by the introduction of chronological facts consisting of repelling impacts. It is shown how some facts have the effect of rendering impossible certain measurement outcomes of an object, independently of measurement outcomes of other objects, while some facts have the effect of correlating measurement outcomes of one object to those of another. The potential for further analysis through numerical simulation is discussed, particularly whether quantum uncertainty emerges from the specification of sufficient facts. Implications of and objections to the interpretation are briefly discussed, including the extent to which identity of objects must be preserved, the extent to which entanglement among objects must be universal, and whether this interpretation conflicts with special relativity. This interpretation may show that quantum mechanics, Planck’s constant, and the discretization of spacetime are emergent phenomena that successfully and very accurately approximate a more fundamental ontology.