Quantum Simulation Hypothesis

If you were tasked with solving the ultimate mystery of “Life, the Universe and Everything,” how would you go about it? According to Douglas Adams—the science fiction author best known for The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy—you’d build a supercomputer named Deep Thought, which, after 7.5 million years of computation, would spit out a perfectly cryptic answer: “42.” Not helpful, right? 

But Adams, in his infinite wit, may have stumbled upon a cosmic truth: “What is the actual question?”  In his story, the computer Deep Thought then designed our planet for some extra dimensional beings so they could run study allowing a few billion anxiety-riddled apes to try and figure that one out.

Beyond the comic genius that epitomizes Adam’s writing he also makes many philosophical observations that do not receive proper respect. For example, if our crazily, critically, perfectly balanced universe (See a deeper explanation of the math behind the concept of a “Tuned Universe” here) is evidence that it has been created or modified in some way then it must be for a reason.  If the universe is a simulation as some theorize then someone created that simulation to DO something.

It is best if we do not ask “IF” the universe was “created;” instead we should ask, “If it was created, then WHY?”

One thing quantitative modelers know is that you build a platform, model or system for a purpose and that purpose is reflected in its structure.  So what can we observe about the structure of our universe that may provide a hint to the “why.”

Let’s look for clues by starting with some basic observations about the “how:”

First, to achieve a tuned universe one would need to explore a nearly infinite set of possible physical constants and laws and initial conditions to find a stable reality capable of supporting matter and life supporting planets. This is insane and represents the first major criticism of the simulation hypothesis. You’d need to simulate every possible outcome of existence, every permutation of life, and every ripple of reality. And that means building a quantum universe, it is the only calculation engine that could even consider supporting the amount of data processing required.

So we have our first clue that perhaps quantum mechanics sits at the base of any explanation. Using this as our jump off point is a pretty big jump, but let’s dive into this zany, yet oddly plausible idea with a little help from the heavyweights of physics, philosophy, and the Adams-esque absurdity of quantum realities.

A Universe as a Simulation: Let’s Build It

Imagine you’re an other-dimensional being, sitting in your intergalactic lounge, sipping on a Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster. You want to know what it’s all about: why stars burn, why frogs exist, why humans make TikToks. But you don’t have an infinity of time or maybe you have no concept of time and you need to simulate a nearly infinite number of permutations and timelines to find stable realities. What do you do? To begin with, as we realized, you create a simulation capable of exploring every conceivable outcome—every moment of time, every decision, every random quark interaction.  

You would create a framework based on what we define as quantum mechanics, the ultimate multi-threaded processing system specifically based on uncertainty. Quantum superposition allows particles to exist in multiple states at once, essentially calculating all possible outcomes simultaneously until an observation forces one state to “collapse” into reality.  That’s how quantum computing works and why it’s useful for problems like codebreaking and protein folding.  

It tries every possible solution at once, but there’s a catch: The solution is only “spit out” when it is observed. That is also an important clue, although it depends heavily on your definition of the identity of the observer or what constitutes an “observation.” There is a whole mess of stuff to discuss here but I’m going to oversimplify to get to the point….

The Observer vs. the Observed

A Zen Koan famously asks: “If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there, does it still make a sound?” Quantum mechanics asks a similar question: If observation is important, if it is what makes reality concrete, then how does reality exist without a pre-existing observer?  Must we posit a Universal Observer that predated the universe to allow it to come into existence?

Alternatively, it can be shown that delayed choices move back in time to affect outcomes that should have already been decided!  Could this effect propagate all the way back to the creation of the universe? We are here now observing a universe that exists and allows us to exist in it.  Is it that very observation propagating back in time that collapses all possible outcomes into only those realities in which we exist (to observe them)?  John Wheeler proposes exactly this:

“We are participators in bringing into being not only the near and here but the far away and long ago.” ~John Wheeler’s Participatory Anthropic Principle

Essentially, the universe requires observers—or simulated observers—to actualize possibilities.

So either an outside agent generated or simply observed a quantum “bubble” that coalesced into our reality or somehow, like a snake biting its own tail, our observation of reality propagated back in time and we are our own creators.  Either situation relies on the quantum mechanics based fabric of reality, which doesn’t solve the tail wagging question since we would still need to know why the fabric of reality allows “self-creation.”

Penrose and Wheeler aren’t the only physicists contemplating such crazy stuff.  Wheeler’s theory is championed by David Bohm, who built on it and proposed the Implicate Order, a framework suggesting that everything is interconnected, with each piece containing the whole.  In addition, these concepts aren’t confined to physics and philosophers have toyed with the concept for generations. Toss in some other musings like Carl Jung’s concept of synchronicity (meaningful coincidences) and the quantum multiverse starts to resemble not just a physics problem, but a cosmic Rube Goldberg machine.

Quantum Mechanics as the Ultimate Simulation Engine

In this cosmic creation experiment, quantum mechanics provides the computational juice. The uncertainty principle ensures that every possible state exists simultaneously, and only observation collapses it into a definitive outcome. Without this mechanism, you’d need an infinite amount of computational power to brute-force every outcome. But with quantum superposition, the simulation elegantly computes all possibilities in parallel—efficiently and absurdly mind-boggling.  Provided you had a computer large enough such as the size of a universe.

Although maybe a little bit more efficiently than it first appears. In this system, universes without life don’t really need to be modeled and automatically will not: there’s no observer to collapse the wave function there. In this reality, our universe, our own consciousness—a byproduct of the simulation—acts as the observer, collapsing the possibilities into what we perceive as reality. Every decision, every observation, is the universe processing another calculation in the grand quest to understand itself.  

Free Will and Linear Time?

So we have some hints from the “how,” but we still haven’t really addressed the “why.”  On this topic let’s return to Mr. Adams’ wonderful observation that it may be that the question matters more than the answer.  So what is the question? Again, we have a clue.

Mankind has been forever obsessed with the concept of free will. Religions tackle the concepts of pre-determinism before an omniscient creator. Romantics celebrate the concepts of fate and providence. Physicists wonder about the nature of time and whether the future already exists.  So if our universe is a simulation, and quantum mechanics drives its infinite possibilities, what does this say about free will and linear time? They seem to be uniquely relevant to our physical existence and that might be because they also fascinate our hypothetical other-dimensional programmers. Why?

Free Will: (Yours, Mine and Ours)

Is free will an illusion? In a hypothetical, pure-Newtonian universe, every outcome is theoretically predictable. This has important implications: We as sentient beings would not actually have the ability to choose our own path. If all future paths can be predicted, then in a way those moments already exist and we cannot, as the time travel movies suggest, “change our fate.” 

What about in our quantum reality? We’ve established that quantum superposition provides the optimum calculation engine for our simulation, but quantum uncertainty allows for another benefit. We now have a non-deterministic universe which at least allows room for free will to exist.

How?  Well, even if time were fixed, if every choice spawns a new branch in the multiverse, then all outcomes exist simultaneously. Yet, to the observer and to each version of that observer, a specific choice is made, the act of choosing feels definitive and whether the other outcomes were realized or not, it would feel deterministic inside the model and allow the exploration of free will. This paradox—choice within a deterministic framework—might itself be the “question” Adams’ universe and those interdimensional aliens were trying to solve.

Linear Time

Is time fixed? Is it necessary that we move through time? We touched on this regarding the predictability of a newtonian universe. If future paths already exist then linear time might simply be an illusion, an artifact of our observation process. We move through time as a slave to thermodynamics and entropy.  We believe time is passing through us—but we move, not it.

That doesn’t necessarily need to be true.  We can imagine an existence without a defined vector of time. In fact, in a simulation exploring all possibilities, time would be non-linear, with all moments existing simultaneously like a movie recording on a film reel—you can jump to any timestamp you like. The perception of “past” and “future” might simply be the program’s way of organizing data for the actors’ and the observer’s benefit—like a neatly indexed file system.

So WHY do we experience a vector of time? Quantum mechanics would suggest that since the outcome is unknown until it is observed that the future CANNOT actually exist in a fixed form ahead of time, only the possibility of all possible futures overlaid on one another. Without time there is no consequence of choice since you can take a mulligan, but realizing the quantum outcome fixes reality and prevents  “do-overs.”

So…without quantum uncertainty there is no flow of time….

Without quantum uncertainty there is no room for free will… .

Without quantum superposition we cannot explore an infinite number of starting conditions or a multitude of possible outcomes.

It really does feel like if you wanted to design a system to explore the concept of free will that you would need a quantum universe to do it. Necessity of need is not proof of cause—but it does present some entertaining circumstantial evidence.

Bringing it All Back to 42

Was Douglas Adams right? If we’re in a quantum simulation designed to explore every outcome, then, yes: “42” is as good an answer as any, because the real challenge isn’t finding the answer—it’s understanding the question. Perhaps the question is this: “What happens when you let quantum uncertainty simulate infinite possibilities?” or “What is the nature of free will in a universe with consequences?”

The answer? Us. The quantum cat, alive or dead. The infinite universes that didn’t spawn observers and thus winked out of simulated existence. And, of course, the improbable fact that you’re reading this sentence right now in this one.

Whether you believe in a singular “Creator,” the ineffable will of a sentient universe or the random chaotic beauty of creation—know that somewhere, deep in the quantum code of reality, the universe is still computing. And maybe, just maybe, when the simulation ends, we’ll finally know what the question really was. Maybe it was us.

Michael Schmanske is a 24-year Wall Street veteran with experience on trading desks and asset managers. He is the co-founder of Prognosis:Innovation as well as founder of MD.Capital.