One PQC Playbook – with Kevin Hilscher of DigiCert | Ep. 110
August 26, 2025
Donald Hoffman The New John the Baptist
August 28, 2025I watched a YouTube hour with Michio Kaku called “The Mind of God,” and Michio said that Simulation Theory cannot be true because there is not enough computing power to direct and map out the atoms in a fishbowl, let alone the entire universe. What his dismissal tells me is that he is not exactly a computer guy. A computer expert would tell Kaku that it could use shortcuts to conserve computing power. This concept, known as “on-demand rendering,” suggests that the simulation only processes what is being observed at any given moment. For instance, the simulation would not need to process a distant galaxy in detail until someone or something in the simulation observed it through a telescope. Another counterargument is that the laws of physics themselves could be the code of the simulation, requiring far less processing than simulating every individual particle.
The simulation might not need to render reality as we know it. Instead of simulating every atom and subatomic particle, it could be built on a more fundamental, simplified level. The laws of physics we observe might just be the output of this more abstract code, not the code itself. Our reality, including gravity, electromagnetism, and the weak and strong nuclear forces, could be the result of a few elegant mathematical rules. This is similar to how a video game engine uses a few core principles to render a complex world without tracking every single polygon. We might not be experiencing a simulation of reality, but rather a simulated reality, which is a key distinction. The simulation would only need to be consistent with its own internal rules, not with an external, “real” physics.
The fact that the universe seems “fine-tuned” for life is often used to support the idea of a creator, but it can also be used as an argument for a simulation. The physical constants of our universe, such as the speed of light, the strength of gravity, and the mass of an electron, are precisely what they need to be for stars, galaxies, and life to form. If these values were even slightly different, the universe would be a sterile, lifeless place. In a simulation, these constants could be parameters that were intentionally set by the programmers to create a universe that supports life and, perhaps, sentient beings. In a true, non-simulated universe, it would be extremely unlikely for all these constants to fall into the narrow range required for life. However, in a simulated universe, a programmer could easily adjust these constants until the desired outcome is achieved. The “fine-tuning” might just be a feature, not a coincidence.
Our perception of time and space may not be what it seems. Time could be a variable, not a constant, in a simulated reality. The simulation could accelerate or decelerate time as needed for different parts of the universe. It might only run at full speed for conscious observers, and slow down or even stop for inactive parts of the universe. This would drastically reduce the processing power required. Similarly, space could be a variable as well. The simulation may not have to render the entire universe at all times, but instead, it could only render the parts that are being actively observed or interacted with. This “on-demand rendering” would apply not just to galaxies, but to the very fabric of space-time and the multiverse. Now I don’t say that just because I wrote a book on the Multiverse Theory.
C. Rich Book
