In recent times, physicists appear to be thriving, though not necessarily in the realm of groundbreaking discoveries about the essence of reality. Instead, they are caught up in an array of speculative ideas that range from the reasonably plausible yet empirically unprovable—like Sean Carroll's promotion of the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics—to outright absurdities, such as the central idea of this discussion.

As someone who began their career in the sciences before transitioning to the philosophy of science, I find myself in an unusual position. Throughout both phases of my career, I've been fascinated by what Karl Popper termed the demarcation problem, which addresses the distinction between science and pseudoscience. I've actively worked to debunk and counter pseudoscientific claims.

What I never anticipated was becoming embroiled in arguments surrounding what I consider pseudo-philosophy, particularly pseudoscience emerging from within the scientific community itself. Yet, here we are once again.

I'm not alone in this effort; fellow thinkers like Jim Baggott, Sabine Hossenfelder, and Peter Woit have also contributed to this critical discourse.

Today’s focus is a concept recently articulated in an increasingly misnamed platform, “Big Think”—the “hypothesis” that the universe has simulated itself into existence. This idea is championed by Klee Irwin, Marcelo Amarai, and David Chester, who are affiliated with Quantum Gravity Research based in Los Angeles, CA. (The complete paper is accessible here.)

Before diving deeper, a few disclaimers are in order. Firstly, Quantum Gravity Research is not a traditional academic institution but rather an independent center founded by entrepreneur Klee Irwin, who is also the lead author of the paper. Secondly, the journal where this paper was published, Entropy, has previously faced scrutiny for pseudoscientific claims, including a controversial 2013 paper that suggested glyphosate could be responsible for a wide array of health issues without presenting new data. This paper faced criticism for its lack of scientific rigor, prompting questions about the integrity of the publisher, MDPI.

Now, regarding the actual paper: Irwin et al. draw on philosopher Nick Bostrom's “simulation hypothesis,” which posits a high probability that we are not physical beings, but rather simulated entities existing within a vast simulation created by unknown higher intelligences. Bostrom suggests that these higher beings could themselves be simulated, leading to an infinite regress of simulations. (For my views on Bostrom's ideas, see here.)

Irwin and his colleagues take Bostrom’s hypothesis further, proposing that the universe self-simulated from pure thought. If that statement sounds perplexing, you're not alone. It also raises the question of whose thought initiated this self-simulation and why one would take this hypothesis seriously.

Evidently, Irwin et al. argue their idea is “more efficient” than Bostrom’s because it avoids materialistic assumptions by claiming that everything is constituted of “information expressed as thought.” While this sentence is grammatically correct, it lacks scientific clarity or empirical testability, which are essential to scientific discourse. How did they determine their hypothesis to be more efficient than Bostrom's, or even traditional physics?

Furthermore, they contend that “the universe self-actualizes itself into existence, relying on underlying algorithms” and a rule they term “the principle of efficient language.” Curiously, this principle is primarily found on the website of Quantum Gravity Research, which is funded by Irwin. It states that the universe favors expressions that utilize minimal geometric symbolism for maximum meaning, identifying two types of meaning: geometric (physical) and emergent, virtually transcendent meaning, such as humor. This concept is nonsensical; the universe does not generate “meaning,” a distinctly human construct, nor does it produce humor. The reference to fundamental particles arranged as triangles further obscures their argument, echoing the dubious concept of a “quasicrystalline spin network” that supposedly underlies space-time without any supporting evidence.

How do Irwin et al. suggest the universe thought itself into existence? They introduce the notion of “timeless emergentism,” which posits that time does not exist in a conventional sense. Instead, they claim that “the all-encompassing thought that is our reality” creates a nested semblance of hierarchy filled with “sub-thoughts” that extend down to fundamental mathematics and particles. Human beings are classified as “emergent sub-thoughts,” experiencing meaning through these sub-thoughts.

Once again, it’s crucial to point out that none of this aligns with established scientific principles. Concepts like “timeless emergentism” and “emergent sub-thoughts” lack any scientific validation.

This has not deterred David Chester, one of Irwin's collaborators, from stating that while many scientists accept materialism as a given, they believe quantum mechanics hints that our reality is a mental construct. They assert that recent advancements in quantum gravity, such as viewing spacetime as emergent via a holographic model, support their claims, and this aligns with ancient philosophical traditions. This sequence of reasoning is problematic: starting with a plausible scientific issue, invoking ancient wisdom, and concluding with vague, scientifically-sounding jargon does not constitute a valid argument.

To compound matters, Irwin et al. introduce the pseudo-philosophical concept of panpsychism. They propose that their “panpsychic self-simulation model” accounts for a pervasive “panconsciousness” that “self-actualizes” through self-simulation. This panconsciousness is said to possess free will, with its various levels capable of selecting which “code” to actualize—all aimed at generating meaning or information (which are not synonymous).

This raises numerous objections. If by “free” will they imply contra-causal will, then the concept is inherently contradictory. Moreover, there is no evidence or rationale supporting the existence of a “code” governing the universe. The idea that the universe has a purpose—Aristotelian teleology—has long been discarded in modern science.

The article concludes with a bizarre analogy, suggesting that dreaming is akin to engaging in personal self-simulations. They claim these dream-simulations yield better resolution than current computational models and produce highly accurate representations of physical systems. This assertion raises questions about their calculations and assumptions.

Finally, the authors propose that advancements in genetic editing will soon allow us to create bespoke consciousnesses. This notion is utterly unfounded, as the link between genetics and consciousness remains tenuous, and our understanding of consciousness is still in its infancy, making the prospect of designing a custom consciousness implausible.

Why have I taken the time to discuss this fabricated narrative? It serves as yet another example within a growing field of pseudoscience and pseudophilosophy. This proliferation is concerning, as it not only bombards us with misinformation but also threatens the credibility of both science and philosophy—something our increasingly fragile open societies cannot afford.