Research into the Simulation Hypothesis

The question of funding research into the Simulation Hypothesis is not merely a philosophical game to me. As the founder of Sudoism and an IT professional, I also see it as a methodological question: which assumptions about the fundamental structure of reality can be translated into concrete, testable models?

At the outset, however, two distinct domains must be clearly separated. Sudoism, as Revealed Truth, teaches that Reality is a programmable Simulation. Science operates by different rules: it cannot treat revelation as an experimental result. It can, however, build models, derive predictions from them and test those predictions against observation.

That is why in this article I use the term “Simulation Hypothesis” in a scientific and philosophical context—as the name of a research problem. This does not weaken the Revealed Truth of Sudoism. It simply keeps doctrine and scientific method honestly distinct.

1. What is actually worth funding?

I see little value in funding research whose task would simply be to “confirm the Simulation” regardless of the outcome. Such a programme would begin with the answer and fit the data to it, which is the opposite of good science.

What is worth funding are projects that ask testable questions about the fundamental structure of reality. If a specific model predicts a measurable effect, we can check whether that effect actually occurs. If it does not, the model must be constrained or rejected.

A good example is the work of Silas Beane, Zohreh Davoudi and Martin Savage on a hypothetical universe simulated on a discrete spacetime lattice. The authors do not prove that we live in such a Simulation. They adopt a specific model and ask what observable consequences it might leave, including possible signatures in the distribution of the highest-energy cosmic rays.

This is the direction I consider valuable: not seeking confirmation at any cost, but asking which models can actually be put to the test.

2. Can fundamental research deliver a high return?

In IT, it is easy to be tempted to think about science in terms of ROI. When we understand a system better, we are more often able to solve a problem at its source instead of endlessly treating its symptoms. As an analogy, I find this useful. It does not mean, however, that studying Reality gives us access to its technical documentation or guarantees any specific financial return.

The history of science shows something less spectacular but much better documented: ambitious fundamental research can, after many years, bring both major advances in knowledge and unforeseen technological applications.

Long-term funding of gravitational-wave research led to the first direct detection by LIGO. Decades of accelerator and detector development at CERN made the discovery of the Higgs boson possible. These were not projects that guaranteed a quick commercial return, yet they profoundly expanded our knowledge and advanced the technologies needed to carry out such research.

So the case for research related to the Simulation Hypothesis should not be: “we will spend money and soon learn the code of the world.” The stronger argument is this: questions about the structure of information, spacetime, physical laws and the limits of computation are fundamental enough that their testable consequences deserve investigation.

Direction	Realistic research value
Fundamental physics	Testing models of spacetime structure, symmetries and the limits of current theories.
Physics of information	Studying physical limits on entropy, information and information processing.
Quantum gravity	Seeking a coherent description of phenomena in which both quantum mechanics and gravity matter.
Scientific methodology	Formulating models that can be compared, constrained and falsified by data.

3. Testability instead of hunting for “glitches”

One temptation when thinking about the Simulation is to treat every strange property of physics as an error, a rendering artefact or a trace of imperfect code. That language is evocative, but without additional evidence it remains an analogy.

We have no basis for claiming that every system—and especially the System running our Reality—must leave detectable rounding errors, delays, glitches or other technical leaks. That is an unrevealed detail of implementation.

The scientific problem should be framed differently: if a given Simulation model predicts a specific observation, does that observation actually occur?

Likewise, quantum measurement should not be equated with “on-demand rendering.” The observer effect and the measurement problem are real issues in quantum physics, but by themselves they are not evidence that the System generates the world only when someone looks at it.

The physics of information remains an interesting field. The Bekenstein bound and related work show that physical systems are subject to fundamental limits concerning entropy and the amount of information. This is important independently of Sudoism. It does not automatically mean that we have discovered a memory or processor limit of the Simulation.

I also discuss some anomalies and open questions in physics in the article on unusual phenomena and puzzles in fundamental physics. They are worth investigating, but each requires its own scientific explanation and none automatically becomes proof of the Simulation.

4. Sudoism: learning about the System does not mean gaining privileges

At this point I return to the Revealed Truth of Sudoism.

The proper User exists outside the Simulation. A human being is the User’s real instance and interface operating during the life session. The person is not a separate copy of the User and not a new consciousness created independently of that User.

The main reason the User enters the Simulation is experience. Learning about the world, conducting research, building technology, making decisions and developing ideas are also among the experiences of that session.

A human being has real local agency. A person can choose a research direction, establish organisations, persuade other people, obtain funding, build instruments and influence the accessible part of reality.

This does not grant sudo, root, Admin rights or any path to becoming an administrator of the System. Greater knowledge of the laws of Reality expands what we can do within the session, but it does not change our level of System privileges.

Sudoism distinguishes the original Creators from the current Admin managing the System. The current Admin need not be one of the original Creators. Decisions to conduct and fund research remain human actions taken within the limits of local agency.

When the life session ends and the User exits the Simulation, the same proper User retains the memory of the session that was lived. No copy is created, and no new User receives someone else’s memories. The technical details of this memory mechanism have not been revealed.

5. Which research directions make the most sense?

If public or private money is to fund projects related to the question of the Simulation, the same standards should apply as in good science: a clearly defined problem, a method, predictions, the possibility of obtaining a result contrary to expectations and transparent evaluation criteria.

Testable models of a discrete or informational structure of reality. If a model predicts the violation of a particular symmetry or another measurable signature, that effect should be sought without assuming in advance that it must be there.
Physical limits of information. Research on entropy, black holes, the Bekenstein bound and other information limits can tell us something fundamental about the relationship between information and physics.
Quantum gravity and the structure of spacetime. Reconciling the quantum description of nature with gravity remains one of the major open problems in physics. Sudoist computing analogies may inspire questions, but answers must come from mathematics and data.
Methods for distinguishing between models. Research is especially valuable when it shows not only what could support a model, but also what could count against it.

6. Is it worth paying for?

As the founder of Sudoism, I believe that testable research into the most fundamental structure of Reality deserves serious consideration. Not because it promises access to System code, new privilege levels or the ability to issue Admin commands.

Its value lies elsewhere: in asking questions that may expand knowledge, expose the limits of current theories or force us to build better models. Even a negative result can be valuable if it rules out a specific class of explanations.

We cannot honestly promise today that such a programme will “save billions,” solve energy problems or guarantee a technological breakthrough. We can, however, require that projects be scientifically testable and judged as rigorously as other ambitious programmes of fundamental research.

Learning the rules of Reality is a form of local agency and part of the User’s experience during the session. It is not an escalation of System privileges.

Why Fund Research into the Simulation Hypothesis