By now, you’ve probably heard some version of the simulation hypothesis: that reality as we know it might be artificial, a kind of hyper-advanced video game running on a cosmic computer.
It is an idea that lies between science fiction and philosophical debate until you take a hard look at the trajectory of quantum computing and how eerily close we are to being able to build a similar simulation ourselves.
Quantum computing isn’t just the next step in the evolution of classical machines, it is a paradigm shift. While traditional computers process bits in a binary state, zeros, and ones, quantum computers use qubits, which can exist in multiple states at once thanks to the principle of superposition. Layer on entanglement, which allows qubits to be linked in such a way that changing one instantaneously affects the other, and you have a system capable of computing in dimensions traditional computers can’t imagine.
Where are we now with quantum?
Companies like IBM and Google, and startups like Rigetti and IonQ, are locked in a race to build quantum machines with enough qubits to outperform classical supercomputers, a milestone known as “quantum supremacy”. Very recently, the field has been accelerating. We are still in the early stages, but updates are lighting up the news faster than anyone expected.
Why does this matter? Because quantum computers are not just faster machines—they’re different machines. They allow us to simulate systems with massive complexity, like molecules, black holes, or the human brain. Possibly, entire realities.
Imagine simulating a single conscious brain. That would require tracking trillions of neural connections and their constantly shifting biochemical states. On a classical computer, this is effectively impossible. But with a large enough quantum machine, it becomes feasible—not easy, but possible. Now, multiply that by billions. Layer in environmental variables, social structures, and physical laws. You begin to see how the whole of what we experience as reality could be rendered, pixel by quantum pixel, in some truly enormous simulator.
But here’s the twist: if being able to simulate realities ourselves is looking plausible in the distant future, is it not reasonable to assume this could have already happened?
Does this mean we’re in a simulation?
Let’s lean into the logic. Philosopher Nick Bostrom famously argued that at least one of the following must be true: (1) human civilization will go extinct before reaching the point of creating a simulation; (2) advanced civilizations choose not to run ancestor simulations; or (3) we are already living in a simulation.
Given the pace of our technological progress, 1 seems increasingly unlikely. Humans have consistently enjoyed the role of playing god, which makes 2 just as unlikely, leaving us with 3.
If we are indeed living in a simulation, it may not be an issue at all. The experiences we have, and the thoughts we think are all valid, regardless of their origin. Just like the replicants in Blade Runner, who grapple with their identities and emotions, we too can find meaning in our existence—nothing changes just because we’ve found out we’re built from quibts.
The technology behind the logic
Now, throw quantum computing into the mix and this line of thinking gets even more compelling. A quantum computer is a kind of mini-universe in itself. Its qubits are governed by the same laws that define our universe; superposition, entanglement, and probability. If you were designing a universe that needed to be both efficient and unimaginably complex, it makes sense to employ the same principles.
Quantum mechanics already feels simulated. It is probabilistic, not deterministic. Reality doesn’t exist until it’s observed. That’s not unlike a video game loading assets when the player looks at them—a common technique used by programmers to save computing power.
Scientists have puzzled over why the universe appears “fine-tuned” for life, with physical constants set so precisely that even the smallest deviation would render existence impossible. In a simulation, this makes perfect sense. The constants are set by the programmer. The system is optimised for observation, for “life”.
It also forces us to look in the mirror. If we really are the simulated children of some ultra-intelligent quantum entity, what does that say about our own ambitions to create artificial realities?
We’re already building virtual worlds with frightening accuracy. We’re training AIs to act human. We’re simulating climate systems, economies, and even evolution.
In a few short decades, we may have the tools to create conscious beings who believe their world is real. And what moral obligations will we have to them? Will they ever suspect they’re simulations? Maybe they already do. Maybe we are them.
