The Socio-Political Reverberations of the Simulation Argument: Societal Implications of Conceiving Reality as Code

(≈ 2 500 words — read time approx. 10 minutes)

(Note: Although the arguments are based on reality, this article includes a large number of thought experiments)

—

A Conceptual Detonation in Slow Motion

When Nick Bostrom formulated his simulation argument in 2003, he re-lit a centuries-old fuse. Descartes’ malin génie, Berkeley’s immaterialism and Kant’s transcendental idealism had already chipped away at naïve realism; Bostrom’s probabilistic twist supplied an apparently scientific logic for doubting the solidity of the world. Two decades later the metaphor of reality-as-code pervades blockbuster cinema, blockchain marketing decks and parliamentary white papers on “digital sovereignty.” The thesis matters not because most citizens literally believe we live inside a super-computer but because it re-describes the basic units of social life - space, labour, value, law - in computational language. Code becomes the deepest infrastructure, matter a mere execution trace. The following sections map the socio-political terrain reshaped by this shift, moving from ontology to power, property, personhood and planetary security.

Information theory (Shannon), cybernetics (Wiener) and systems thinking laid the groundwork for equating “to exist” with “to be processed.” In the 1960s Stanislaw Lem and Philip K. Dick fictionalised bureaucracies that literally rewrote worlds; today cloud hyperscalers, AI foundation models and national data centres act as real-world counterparts. Sovereignty drifts toward actors who control the substrate of computation.

A Swedish data-centre outage can ground flights; an American export ban on advanced GPUs can paralyse an entire sector of Chinese research. The very idea of a Weberian monopoly on legitimate violence is entangled with a monopoly on cyber-infrastructure, from under-sea cables to orbital relay chains. Military planners now speak of “kill-chain latency budgets” in bytes and nanoseconds. Quantum-safe communication is debated as urgently as missile defence, underscoring the thesis that whoever edits or decrypts the cosmic code will wield decisive power.

Reality-as-a-Service: Markets for the Ontological Layer

Treating existence as code invites commodification of “reality slices.” The metaverse real-estate market stood at roughly USD 1.69 billion in 2024 and is projected to exceed USD 57 billion by 2033, an annual compound growth of 48 per cent.    Virtual land deeds, secured by smart contracts and priced in crypto-assets, claim to confer exclusive rights over coordinates that are - ontologically speaking - no more than database rows. This development extends the neoliberal logic of enclosure from physical commons to simulation layers. The public square morphs into a set of pay-walled servers. Digital tenancy agreements can be revoked by a unilateral click, replacing centuries-old eviction law with platform terms of service. Critics warn of an emerging “ontological rentier” class: those who buy early into reality infrastructure will collect access tolls from all subsequent inhabitants, whether human or algorithmic.

If reality is code, the protection - or sabotage - of that code becomes the fulcrum of geopolitics. Deep-packet inspection, AI-driven influence operations and satellite spoofing exemplify soft power re-imagined as control over the sensory feed of billions. Yet post-quantum cryptography threatens to overturn existing hierarchies. States are investing more than USD 40 billion in quantum technologies, regarding them as strategic assets that will guarantee economic prowess and military over-match.    The race is not merely to break today’s encryption but to monopolise tomorrow’s unbreakable channels. Military briefings equate “undecryptable comms” with nuclear-era second-strike capability, making code control a deterrence pillar equal to ballistic submarines.    Thus the simulation metaphor no longer looks like science fiction; it informs threat perceptions, procurement cycles and alliance politics.

Our Identity as Executable Profile

Social-media architectures and consumer genomics have already reframed personhood as a mutable bundle of data-points: location graphs, sentiment vectors, polygenic risk scores. Simulation rhetoric pushes this to the limit by depicting selfhood itself as software. Corporate hiring platforms score applicants using opaque “fit” algorithms; immigration authorities compute “risk weights” that travel with individuals like metadata shadows. Insurance carriers adjust premiums daily as wearable devices stream biosignals. The outcome is algorithmic federalism: a patchwork of quasi-legal jurisdictions where one’s privileges depend on the platform interpreting one’s profile. Efforts to attach blockchain-based identity wallets promise self-sovereign identity but clash head-on with Europe’s Right to Be Forgotten, because immutability and erasure are ontological opposites.

 In the simulation frame the question “Who am I?” is inseparable from “Who has write permission on my code?”

Open-source advocates envision a digital commons where the cosmological source code is transparent and collectively audited. Reality, however, is trending toward proprietary builds. Cloud AI services expose narrow APIs while withholding training data and model weights. High-resolution earth-observation constellations restrict raw feeds to defence clients. Quantum processors are accessible only through metered pay-per-qubit portals. Knowledge of “what the simulation is doing” stratifies along capital lines, producing an epistemic gentry and a cognitive precariat. Even within science, reproducibility crises are exacerbated by licensing fees for datasets or compute credits. If code is the new land, intellectual enclosure repeats the history of the English commons on an information substrate.

—

The simulation thesis is politically ambivalent. One branch inspires nihilism - why protest if every outcome is pre-compiled? Digital apathy correlates with conspiracy binge-consumption on algorithmic timelines. Yet the same metaphor galvanises “source-code activism”: hacktivist groups leak surveillance blueprints; feminist collectives fork open-source algorithms to encode de-biasing layers; climate protesters gamify carbon tracking. The meme of “re-writing the simulation” reframes utopia as a pull request rather than a revolution, aligning with networked micro-practices such as community mesh-nets and DAO-governed micro-grids. Nevertheless, the discursive battlefield is crowded. Far-right influencers deploy Matrix-derived “red-pill” lore to recruit sympathisers, while centrist governments cite deepfake panics to tighten content-moderation rulebooks. In 2024 alone, analysts catalogued 82 politically motivated deepfakes across 38 countries, many timed to coincide with elections. Simulation talk, therefore, functions as both rallying cry and smokescreen.

Law, Responsibility and Algorithmic Causation

Traditional jurisprudence hinges on proximate causation and mens rea. In a layered, code-centric ontology, causation diffuses across nested feedback loops. A trading algorithm triggers a flash crash; regulators probe not intent but loss-function design. EU drafts of the AI Liability Directive propose strict duties of explainability, effectively treating software architects as stewards of micro-realities. Yet software licences routinely disclaim liability, echoing medieval doctrines of divine inscrutability. Tort scholars debate whether “algorithmic foreseeability” should extend to low-probability tail events generated by reinforcement learning agents. Autonomous drones or conversational AIs now produce novel content that policymakers compare to “emergent clauses” in an evolving constitutional code. Legal formalities must grapple with a world where bugs propagate faster than injunctions.

GDPR’s Article 17 enshrines the right to erasure, whereas most blockchain designs pride themselves on immutability. The tension exposes a wider philosophical conflict between memory and redemption. Hybrid protocols attempt off-chain storage with hash pointers; zero-knowledge proofs allow verifiable yet concealable credentials.    Still, full compliance would require global consensus mechanisms to adopt “legal kill-switches.” Simulation rhetoric frames the legal dilemma bluntly: once a datum is in the ledger it becomes part of the reality texture - deleting it might be akin to rewriting history. The stakes are no longer limited to privacy; they touch on historiography, evidentiary integrity and even collective memory of atrocities.

  Deepfakes, Mediated Perception and The Crisis of Evidentiary Authority

If algorithmic video synthesis can fabricate a presidential confession indistinguishable from an authentic broadcast, evidentiary authority migrates from human testimony to cryptographic watermarking. During the 2024 election “super-cycle,” fears of deepfake chaos proved exaggerated but not baseless: researchers logged 82 prominent cases, and electoral commissions had to establish rapid-response verification teams.   

Courts will soon weigh blockchain timestamping, hardware secure-enclave signatures and perceptual hashing as formal standards of proof. Simulation talk amplifies the anxiety: if any clip could be fabricated, perhaps all news is suspect. Such epistemic corrosion benefits actors aiming to blur accountability. The antidote - algorithmic provenance - further cements code as the final arbiter of reality.

Religious, Existential and Mythic Resonances

The idea of a “creator-coder” resonates with Abrahamic notions of Logos and Hindu metaphors of Maya- the cosmic illusion. Some theologians adopt simulation language to argue for a digital eschatology in which resurrection equals mind-upload. Others denounce the thesis as silicon gnosticism. Secular philosophers note that simulationism deflates teleology: if universes are trivially spawnable, meaning must be user-generated. This ironically mirrors open-world game design, where narrative weight shifts to player agency. Psychologists report both awe and anxiety among adherents: some experience derealisation, others find empowerment in the thought that parameters can change. Clinical considerations include “simulation solipsism,” a subset of derealisation disorder where patients doubt the ontological status of loved ones.

Bit-string ontologies obscure the mineral underbelly of computation. Data-centres already rival the airline industry in carbon footprint; training a single large language model can emit as much CO₂ as a trans-Atlantic flight for 300 passengers. Quantum computers require dilution refrigerators at near-absolute-zero. Rare-earth extraction for GPUs devastates ecosystems from Congo to Inner Mongolia. If more layers of “real estate” migrate to server farms, energy demand could soar beyond renewables’ scaling curve. Simulationism must therefore confront its thermodynamic shadow: coding “lighter realities” does not annul entropy; it merely shifts entropy generation to distant power plants or solar arrays. Debates on digital degrowth and “slow computing” aim to temper the naïve belief that virtualisation is environmentally neutral.

Education, Cognition and Mental-Model Plasticity

Classrooms increasingly employ simulation tools - virtual dissections, VR field trips - to convey complex phenomena. Pedagogues laud the motivational boost, yet caution that hyper-real fidelity can erode epistemic humility; students may conflate rendered certainty with empirical uncertainty. In cognitive science the predictive-processing framework—the brain as a hierarchical simulation engine - gains traction, dovetailing with cultural narratives of reality-as-code.

Experimental studies show teenagers steeped in simulation media exhibit higher “ontological flexibility,” rating category boundaries (e.g., between animate and inanimate) as more permeable. Policymakers worry about attention fragmentation but also see opportunities for metacognitive curricula that teach source-code literacy: understanding algorithms, bias and data governance as twenty-first-century civic competencies.

In simulation-aware security doctrine, an information operation that corrupts decision-loops may rank beside a kinetic strike. Synthetic speech can pose false launch orders; sensor spoofing can conjure phantom fleets on radar. Quantum supremacy, if achieved, could vitiate current public-key infrastructure overnight, forcing a “crypto-apocalypse” migration of global finance. Strategic theorists propose zero-knowledge peace treaties where states verify compliance without revealing sensitive data—a notion unimaginable outside code metaphysics. Meanwhile, adversaries target under-sea cables and satellite links, aiming to sever the simulation feed itself. The distinction between defending borders and defending bit-paths collapses.

Futures: Recursive Simulations, AI Stewards and Governance Experiments

Speculative research explores the possibility of “nested” simulations operated by advanced AI stewards to stress-test policy scenarios. Cities like Singapore and Dubai run digital twins that integrate traffic, climate and epidemiological models in real time. If policymakers increasingly legislate based on outcomes observed first in simulation sand-boxes, the boundary between model and jurisdiction blurs. Governance becomes an iterative query to a civic database, updated nightly. Critics fear “model monoculture”: if one proprietary simulation platform dominates, its embedded assumptions could ossify into de facto law. Advocates counter that pluralistic model ecosystems could democratise foresight, letting citizens fork municipal policies like software.

Conclusion: Contesting the Cosmic Repository

The simulation argument reshapes ontology, power and possibility in the image of code. It seeds two existential hazards: determinist nihilism, which dissolves accountability, and code aristocracy, which concentrates meta-control over being. Countervailing strategies include legislating algorithmic transparency, funding open hardware, embedding ethical guard-rails in cryptographic standards and teaching algorithmic civics. Ultimately, whether reality is code may matter less than who writes, audits and deploys that code. As long as societies retain the capacity to scrutinise and renegotiate their digital substrates, simulationism can serve as a spur to agency rather than a pretext for abdication. But that capacity is neither automatic nor evenly distributed; it must be secured through political struggle, legal innovation and technological pluralism. The stakes could not be higher: in an age where bits configure bullets, ballots, and beliefs, governing code is tantamount to governing reality itself.

Resources:

– B. Bostrom, “Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?”, Philosophical Quarterly, 2003.

– Metaverse Real Estate Market Report, Business Research Insights, April 2025.

– “Targets, Objectives & Emerging Tactics: Political Deepfakes 2024”, Recorded Future, Sept 2024.

– S. D. Sklenka, remarks at Modern Day Marine expo, May 2025; summarised in Business Insider.

– Post-Quantum Ltd., “Quantum Geopolitics: The Global Race for Quantum Computing”, March 2025.

– LetsLaw, “Right to Be Forgotten and Blockchain: The Eternal Dichotomy?”, 2024.

– P. Schwartfeger, “Blockchain: The Right to Be Forgotten or Not”, 2024.

– Harvard Ash Center, “AI and the 2024 Election Super-Cycle”, Dec 2024.