The idea that our reality might not be “real” is far older than Silicon Valley’s obsession with it. Ancient philosophies across the globe questioned the nature of existence. In China, the philosopher Zhuangzi once wrote of a dream in which he was a butterfly—and awoke unsure if he was a man who had dreamed he was a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming he was a man. In India, the concept of Maya suggested that the world is an illusion, a veil over the ultimate truth. Plato’s Allegory of the Cave described humans chained in darkness, seeing only shadows on a wall and mistaking them for reality.
Fast forward to the Enlightenment, and René Descartes introduced his famous thought experiment of an “evil demon” manipulating our senses. His question—how do we know we can trust what we perceive?—has an eerie modern echo in the Simulation Hypothesis. In the early 2000s, philosopher Nick Bostrom formalised the idea with what’s now called the Simulation Argument: if advanced civilisations can run simulations of conscious beings, and if they choose to do so, then statistically we’re more likely to be living in one than in base reality.
This argument rests on simple probability. If future beings could run millions of simulated realities, then only one is “real” while the rest are simulations. If you woke up in one at random, chances are overwhelming you’d be in a simulation. That’s the unsettling logic that has hooked scientists, philosophers, and tech leaders alike.
The Scientific Possibility
While the notion sounds like science fiction, certain aspects of modern science make it plausible. For one, the universe operates in ways that seem strikingly digital. Matter and energy break down into discrete units—quanta—rather than flowing in a smooth continuum. Space and time themselves may be “pixelated” at the Planck scale, the smallest measurable length, much like pixels on a screen.
Physicists have also observed strange limits in the universe that resemble computational constraints. The speed of light acts as a universal speed limit, much like a cap on data transfer. The amount of information that can be stored within a given space—defined by the Bekenstein Bound—suggests the universe has a finite information capacity, as if it were a data system.
Some researchers have even proposed experimental tests. Theoretical work suggests that if space-time is generated by an underlying grid or code, incredibly precise measurements—using atomic clocks or high-energy particle experiments—could detect tiny irregularities, like the flicker of a screen or the grain of film. Although no such evidence has been confirmed, the fact that these tests are conceivable is enough to keep the hypothesis alive.
Why It Might Be True
Supporters of the simulation theory often point to three key factors:
Technological inevitability – Computer power has grown exponentially for decades. In just one lifetime, we’ve gone from Pong to photorealistic virtual worlds. If this trajectory continues, simulating an entire conscious world may be as routine for a future civilisation as running a weather forecast is for us.
Mathematical underpinnings of reality – The laws of physics are, at their core, expressed in mathematical equations. Every interaction, from the fall of an apple to the orbit of galaxies, can be described in numbers. This mathematical “purity” is exactly how you’d expect a programmed environment to behave.
Unexplained ‘glitches’ – While anecdotal, reports of déjà vu, improbable coincidences, and strange quantum phenomena like wavefunction collapse fuel speculation. Quantum mechanics itself—the fact that particles seem to exist in multiple states until observed—has been likened to a rendering engine only loading details when a player looks directly at them.
The Human Impact of the Theory
For some, the idea of living in a simulation is exhilarating. It suggests that the boundaries of reality are more flexible than we think—that perhaps, with the right understanding, we could bend the rules. For others, it’s unsettling, raising questions about meaning, morality, and purpose. If our universe is artificially constructed, does that make life less significant or does it mean we are part of something profoundly intentional?
Documentary filmmakers have captured stories of people whose lives were transformed by this idea. Some reported feeling liberated—seeing life as a kind of immersive game where curiosity and creativity are paramount. Others experienced existential crises, questioning the point of long-term goals if their reality could be paused or reset at any moment.
Psychologists note that, regardless of the theory’s truth, believing in it can alter human behaviour. People may take more risks, value experiences over possessions, or even show more compassion—treating others better on the off chance they’re interacting with the “creators” through every conscious being they meet.
The Debate Continues
Sceptics argue that the simulation hypothesis is unfalsifiable that even if we found oddities in physics, we could never be certain they were due to a simulation rather than unknown natural laws. Others point out the sheer computational power needed to simulate an entire universe might be impractically vast, even for a super-advanced species.
Yet, the conversation refuses to fade. From philosophers to astrophysicists, tech billionaires to everyday dreamers, people are still drawn to the possibility that our existence is part of something much larger—and perhaps stranger—than we can comprehend.
Whether or not we are living in a simulation, one fact remains: the theory forces us to confront the ultimate question—what is reality? And in doing so, it reminds us that our everyday lives, however ordinary they may seem, could be part of an extraordinary design.
If We Are in a Simulation, Can We Hack or Cheat It?
If the Simulation Hypothesis is true, then in theory, our universe might operate on rules similar to a vast, highly complex computer program. And like any program, it could have vulnerabilities—loopholes, bugs, or even intentional “backdoors” left by its creators. This idea sparks an obvious, and very human, question: could we exploit those weaknesses?
Proponents of this line of thinking point to phenomena in physics that behave in puzzling, almost game-like ways. Quantum mechanics, for example, suggests particles can exist in multiple states until observed—a kind of “lazy rendering” familiar to video game developers, where details are only processed when a player looks at them. If our reality is rendered in real time, could observation itself be a kind of tool for altering outcomes? This is where the idea of “hacking” reality often overlaps with practices like focused intention, meditation, or even lucid dreaming ways to interact with consciousness that might influence the “code” beneath.
Some futurists speculate that advanced knowledge of the universe’s underlying framework could allow us to manipulate it. If the simulation runs on mathematical laws, then mastering those laws might open doors to otherwise impossible feats such as altering probabilities, bypassing physical limitations, or even “modding” reality in ways that appear miraculous to the untrained eye. Stories of extreme luck, inexplicable survival, or sudden bursts of insight have been interpreted by some as accidental brushes with these hidden mechanics.
However, the “cheating” analogy also comes with caution. If we are in a simulation, there could be security measures fail-safes to prevent conscious beings from interfering too much. In video games, cheating can lead to glitches, crashes, or bans. In our reality, the equivalent might be unknown and potentially catastrophic. Philosophers warn that, even if possible, deliberately tampering with reality could have unpredictable consequences not just for the individual, but for the entire system.
Finally, there’s the question of intent. If our universe’s “creators” designed it with certain boundaries, is finding ways to bypass them an act of ingenuity or defiance? And would they allow it? Some theorists argue that what we call “spiritual enlightenment” could be the legitimate, intended way to transcend the simulation meaning the real “hack” might not be brute-force manipulation, but understanding the purpose of the program itself.
Conclusion – So, Are We All Just NPCs with Wi-Fi?
If we are in a simulation, then life might be one long, high-definition, multiplayer role-playing game complete with side quests like “find your keys” and boss levels such as “Monday mornings.” Maybe the déjà vu you felt last week wasn’t your brain glitching, but the system reloading your save file. And perhaps that suspiciously lucky parking space was your personal cheat code kicking in.
The truth is, we can’t yet prove it either way. We might be in base reality, bravely muddling through the chaos. Or we might be part of a cosmic experiment run by some postgraduate from the year 3125, sipping synth-coffee while watching us wonder about it. Either way, the rules are the same: pay your bills, be kind, and don’t walk into lampposts while pondering the nature of existence.
Until someone unplugs the server or hands us the admin password, we might as well play the game with style. After all, whether this is “real life” or just an incredibly immersive programme, it’s still the only round we’ve got.
Hi, I’m Sarah Jade. I’m 25, Yorkshire born stubborn redhead, and just finding my feet in the wild world of independent journalism.I’ve always had this fire in me for telling real stories, the kind that actually mean something. I love the British spirit, the blunt honesty, the humour, and yes… I do get emotional about free speech and the truth. I’m not perfect, but I care deeply about people, fairness, and saying what others might be too scared to.