Are We Living in a Simulation? What Quantum Physics and Advaita Vedanta Both Suggest

This article examines the simulation hypothesis (Bostrom N, Philosophical Quarterly 2003, 53(211):243-255), quantum physics evidence for observer-dependent and computational reality, and Advaita Vedanta’s Maya framework as three independent bodies of thought suggesting that ordinary physical reality does not have the independent, objective existence attributed to it. Simulation Hypothesis: Bostrom’s trilemma (extinction before maturity / loss of interest in simulations / we are simulated); statistical argument for simulated consciousness majority; Elon Musk popularisation; David Chalmers’ Reality+ (2022) — simulation as genuine reality. Quantum Physics evidence: (1) Quantisation at Planck scale (Planck length 1.616×10⁻³⁵ m; Planck time 5.39×10⁻⁴⁴ s) suggesting discrete computational substrate; (2) Observer-dependent wavefunction collapse — measurement problem — Copenhagen interpretation: reality constituted by observation; (3) Quantum entanglement and non-locality: Bell’s theorem (Bell 1964); Aspect et al. (1982); Hensen et al. loophole-free test (Nature 2015) — non-local correlations inconsistent with local hidden variables, consistent with shared underlying data structure; (4) Holographic principle: Bekenstein-Hawking entropy area proportionality (→ TQS-2026-211); ’t Hooft (1993); Susskind (1995); Maldacena AdS/CFT (1997): 3D physics as projection of 2D information; (5) Fine-tuning of physical constants — naturalness of parameter-setting in computational framework; (6) Wheeler’s ‘it from bit’ (participatory universe); Tegmark’s Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (2008). Advaita Vedanta: Maya (superimposition/adhyasa of apparent independence on Brahman); Vivartavada (Shankaracharya) — world as apparent transformation; Gaudapada’s Ajata-vada (non-origination: the world never truly began); Mandukya Upanishad four states; rope-snake analogy (rajju-sarpa nyaya); dream analogy (svapna drishthanta); Brahman as consciousness-substrate; Ishvara as cosmic projector; Tat tvam asi (you are That) — Jiva identical to Brahman. Three-way convergence table: computational nature, observer’s constitutive role, non-locality/non-duality, projection from more fundamental reality, consciousness as primary, resolution/liberation/escape. Critical differences: substrate (physical computer vs. consciousness); relation of beings to substrate (separate vs. identical); existence of external creator; radical depth of Ajata-vada vs. simulation theory. Governing thesis: all three frameworks converge on the inadequacy of the commonsense view of physical reality as independent, objective, and self-sustaining. Advaita’s framework is both the oldest and, in its implications for the nature of consciousness and the identity of the individual with the substrate, the most radical.