The idea that our Universe has fixed, absolute parameters — like the speed of light as a maximum speed limit (c) and 0 Kelvin as an unreachable minimum temperature — does indeed carry the signature of a programmed system, rather than a truly analog, continuous one. These boundaries feel less like laws of nature that emerged organically and more like constraints coded into a system to ensure stability, consistency, and performance — just as you'd expect in a computational environment.
These hard, non-negotiable limits are to me like system parameters:
- The Planck length, below which space loses meaning
- The Planck time, shortest measurable unit of time
- Speed of light, an upper bound on information transfer
- Absolute zero, a theoretical floor of thermodynamic activity
All of these are conceptually similar to float limits or system constraints you'd find in a simulation to keep the physics from spiraling into instability or undefined behavior (e.g., divide by zero errors, infinite recursion, etc.). In a true analog universe, one might expect gradual tapering or infinite variability. But in ours, reality appears pixelated at the smallest scales — a red flag that we’re in a quantized (or discretely simulated) environment.
A few more reasons to believe in the simulation hypothesis, by far my favorite theory to explain the Universe.
-
Hard-Coded Constants Like Alpha (α)
Beyond fixed physical limits like the speed of light and absolute zero, there's also the fine-structure constant, α ≈ 1/137.035999, that governs electromagnetic interaction. What makes it strange is that it’s not derived from deeper laws; it’s simply there, like a configuration value set at the start of a simulation. In game or system design, constants like this control how a world behaves and are fine-tuned to create stable, playable environments. α has that same arbitrary but essential quality. Why that number, and not another? Physics can’t say.
-
Vacuum Isn’t Nothing — It Has Energy
In physics, even “empty” space isn’t truly empty. Quantum field theory shows that the vacuum is full of energy — constantly bubbling with virtual particles. This vacuum energy is measurable and may even drive cosmic expansion (what we call dark energy). In other words, space-time doesn’t just exist passively — it requires energy to behave the way it does. That’s a strange feature for something supposedly fundamental. But in a simulation, this makes perfect sense: just like in a computer, you need power and memory to render an environment. If even nothingness has a cost, then maybe it’s not truly nothing — it’s runtime, fabricated like background code continuously running to simulate an environment.
-
Physics Might Be the Wrong Lens
Physics has failed to unify the very large (General Relativity) and the very small (Quantum Mechanics). Despite a century of effort, no single “Theory of Everything” has emerged. What if this is a clue? In a simulated universe, physics wouldn’t need to be coherent at all scales — just convincing enough to run the illusion. Computer Science, not Physics, may be the deeper language of reality. Code can contain local hacks, approximations, or modular subsystems that don’t play well together — much like quantum and relativistic models. The glitch might not be in the theories, but in the assumption that we’re in base reality.
-
Language as the Root of Consciousness
Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate emergent properties — intelligence-like behaviors arising not from deep logic, but simply from exposure to language. If a pattern-recognition system can appear to “think” based on words alone, perhaps our consciousness — and what we call “the soul” — is similarly rooted in language. We might be “self-aware” simply because our brains are saturated with language, just like LLMs. In a simulation, the appearance of a “soul” could emerge once the code reaches a certain threshold of linguistic complexity — making consciousness not a divine mystery, but a built-in system feature.
-
Synchronicities as Glitches or Clues
Many people report synchronicities — precise, meaningful coincidences that respond to internal thoughts or feelings. These events often defy statistical probability and can't easily be dismissed as random. In a non-simulated universe, they make no sense. But in a simulation, they could be side effects of a system tracking your intentions or optimizing for narrative coherence. Like a game engine adapting to the player, reality might occasionally “respond” to us — especially under emotional or high-focus states. If these patterns hold up, they suggest a feedback loop between observer and code — which would be deeply unnatural in a purely physical world.
- Ideas that cross into theological or parapsychological territory
6.1
Why Does Astrology Seem to Work?
6.2 Is Today’s Pseudoscience Tomorrow’s Science? When Reality Exceeds Understanding
https://open.substack.com/pub/
By Thays Cristina da Nóbrega Cunha
