If we exist within a simulation, we cannot "break out" of it. This isn't a practical limitation—it's a logical impossibility. Instead can we use random behavior to let our simulators know we're on to them?
Bad news folks. We're here to stay...
If we exist within a simulation, we cannot "break out" of it in any conventional sense. This isn't merely a practical limitation—it's a logical impossibility. This article explores how collective random behavior could let our overlords know we've discovered our reality. Not escape—communication.
But what happens if they notice? Read on to find out.
Check out the audio companion for this article below.
Nick Bostrom's simulation hypothesis has become one of the most compelling (and unsettling) philosophical theories of our time. In his 2003 paper, he presented a trilemma suggesting that one of the following propositions must be true:
If advanced civilizations develop the capability to run ancestor simulations and choose to do so, the number of simulated beings would vastly outnumber "real" beings. Simple probability then suggests we are more likely to be among the simulated many than the "real" few.
Two decades later, this theory is still a front-and-center topic of conversation. Tech bros like Elon Musk have endorsed it, computer scientists have debated whether it's even possible technically, and philosophers have pondered the implications for consciousness and reality.
But amid all of this, there's one question that remains particularly vexing:
If we are in a simulation, is there any way to escape it—or at least meaningfully interact with those who created it?
And perhaps more fundamentally, can we even fathom what such "interaction" would mean across our boundaries of existence?
Sorry kids - there's a sobering realization we have to deal with:
If we exist within a simulation, we cannot "break out" of it in any conventional sense. This isn't merely a practical limitation—it's a logical impossibility.
Think about what it might mean to exist in a simulation. Our entire reality—physical laws, consciousness, perception, and even our ability to inwardly contemplate our own existence—would be constructs within the simulation's framework. In a sense, the very cognitive tools we would use to try to escape - would themselves be part of the simulation.
This is way different from scenarios portrayed in films like "The Matrix," where people have an existence outside the simulation to which they could return.
If Bostrom's hypothesis is correct, we don't have separate bodies "plugged in" somewhere—our entire being exists as information patterns within the simulation itself.
This is what "breaking out" would require:
Unfortunately, both are impossible if our entire existence is defined within the simulation. We cannot access or operate by rules other than those programmed into our reality, nor can we exist in a form the simulation doesn't define.
This constraint forces us to rethink what 'impossible' really means in terms of escaping a simulation. It's not impossible in the way climbing Mount Everest barefoot is impossible (crazy difficult but theoretically doable). It's impossible in a deeper sense—like trying to draw a square circle or count to infinity.
The simulation creates the very framework of what's possible for us, similar to how the rules of chess define what moves can exist in the game. Just as no chess move can transform a pawn into a basketball, no action within our simulation could ever reach 'outside' of it—not because we lack the skill or technology, but because such states simply don't connect to anything within our system of reality.
The doors to worlds outside our simulation don't just have unbreakable locks; they don't exist as doors at ALL within our conceptual framework.
We Gotta Get Out Of This Place
While breaking out may be impossible, all hope is not lost. Something potentially remains within reach: communication.
What if we could send signals to the simulation's creators or our overlords —messages that say, effectively, "We've figured out what this is, and we're trying to reach you"?
What's great is that his approach acknowledges our constraints while still asserting agency. It's similar to a character in a novel who, unable to physically step off the page, might still demonstrate awareness of being fictional in ways the author would notice.
But how do we do this?
This proposition immediately raises the question of whether communication across categorical boundaries of existence is even possible. Communication by definition typically requires a shared medium and method of information processing.
When entities exist in fundamentally different ontological categories (simulated beings versus beings in base reality), the very concept of communication may require redefinition.
(As an aside, dear reader - this is not the first time that we have considered the challenges in communicating across ontological boundaries. See our series on communicating with NHI.)
So, this idea of communicating with our simulators brings up a deep question:
How would our messages actually reach them?
Think about it like this: When you text a friend, your phone connects to theirs through cell towers and networks that already exist. You didn't build the cell towers yourself; you're just using a pathway that was already created. Similarly, for us to "message" the simulation creators, there would need to be some built-in connection between our reality and theirs.
We can't create this connection ourselves (we're in the simulation, remember) it would have to be something the simulators already programmed into our world, like a hidden mailbox they installed and occasionally check.
This means our ability to communicate depends entirely on whether they've already given us a way to reach them. We can drop messages in the mailbox, but we can't build the mailbox itself.
The most promising approach probably lies in creating "statistical anomalies"—patterns of behavior that would appear highly improbable within the expected parameters or boundaries of the simulation.
Here's the core premise: A simulation sophisticated enough to create conscious beings would likely operate on certain baseline assumptions and expected behaviors. If enough simulated beings acted in ways that dramatically deviate from these expectations, it might register as an anomaly or generate alarm bells requiring attention from the simulators.
We've written about this idea in the past as well, but this is where concepts like "randonauting" become relevant.
Randonauting involves using quantum random number generators to identify map coordinates for exploration, deliberately seeking experiences outside one's normal patterns and probability. While people do this today to have an unexpected adventure, the underlying concept has philosophical implications for what we're discussing here.
If large numbers of people simultaneously engaged in truly random behaviors—behaviors that break from the statistical norms the simulation might expect—it could potentially create a detectable pattern of anomaly at a higher level.
But here we go again - how can we identify what makes up "anomalous" behavior without knowing the simulation's baseline expectations? We're attempting to deviate from a norm we cannot directly observe. Our guess to what might register as statistically significant to our hypothetical overlords is going to be based on assumptions about their design goals and monitoring parameters—assumptions we have no ability to confirm.
An even deeper philosophical question is whether what we think of as "randomness" is even relevant within the simulation's framework. If the simulation is entirely deterministic, our attempts at randomness might simply be following predetermined paths already accounted for in the system's design. Even our perception of choosing a random path might itself be a simulated experience.
Ok, how do we do this? Consider the scenario where large numbers of simulation inhabitants simultaneously engage in:
The key is that these activities would need to be:
This proposal confronts us with the problem of "other minds" or "how do I know that other beings have conscious experiences like my own?" This is a classical philosophical problem with new implications when in a simulated context.
For mass coordination to work, we have to assume that other entities in our reality are truly conscious agents rather than sophisticated non-player characters (NPCs). If some or most apparent humans are merely simulated without genuine awareness, our efforts at collective action would be undermined from the start.
This leads to the question:
How can we be sure that other entities in our simulation possess consciousness comparable to our own, especially when our own consciousness might be a simulation?
Here's another consideration: are the constraints that we perceive permanent or potentially malleable? It's entirely possible that our simulation may have emergent properties not explicitly programmed by its creators—phenomena that arise from complex interactions within the system itself.
These emergent properties might allow for behaviors or patterns that transcend the initial programmatic limitations, creating room for anomalies that even the simulation's designers didn't anticipate. In this sense, the boundaries of what's possible within the simulation may not be fixed at all - but rather evolve continuously through collective complexity.
If we do succeed in getting their attention, the simulation's architects would have limited ways to respond:
The mere possibility of getting any type of response is worth the effort, even if we can never confirm the results.
All of this does make the assumption, however, that our overlords even care about anomalies in their simulation at all. We're anthropomorphizing their interests by assuming they have human-like curiosity. Another approach entirely would be to just try to analyze the parameters of our simulated existence to try to understand what their motivations might have been in the first place.
Consider that if they're running ancestor simulations (as Bostrom suggests), they might be interested in how civilizations develop naturally—making intervention counterproductive to their research goals. Alternatively, they might be running simulations with an unfathomable amount of parameters so that our local "anomalies" might just register as statistical noise within an expected variation.
Without knowing the purpose of the simulation, we cannot determine whether our attempts at communication align with or run counter to our overlords' interests.
This approach does raise some serious questions about the nature of randomness itself. In a deterministic simulation, can true randomness exist? Maybe. There are a few possibilities:
If the first case is true, our attempts at randomness would ultimately follow patterns that are entirely predictable to the simulators. However, the second and third possibilities suggest we might be able to access or create genuine unpredictability that could be detected as anomalous.
We should also consider what some philosophers call the 'Simulation Indifference Thesis'—the idea that it doesn't really matter whether we're in a simulation or not because our experiences feel exactly the same either way.
Critics might say that our attempts to communicate with simulation creators are like praying in a world where gods don't exist. In both cases, people are sincerely trying to reach out to something beyond their reality, but their messages might never be received by anyone. They might argue that our random behaviors are just shouting into an empty void—meaningful to us perhaps, but ultimately not going anywhere.
But there's an important difference between reaching out to simulation creators and praying to deities.
The simulation creators, if they exist, are likely just advanced beings using sophisticated technology—more like super-advanced scientists than supernatural gods. They operate within the natural world, just in a higher level of reality than ours. It's more like trying to communicate with someone who created a video game than trying to contact a magical being from another dimension. Even though there are barriers between our reality and theirs, there's still a natural connection through the simulation itself. This makes our attempt to communicate with them more reasonable than it might first appear.
All of this boils down to a single question:
If we can never truly escape the simulation, and we can never be certain our communication attempts are successful, why even do anything?
The answer lies in what we would potentially gain from the attempt:
Perhaps most importantly, it transforms our relationship with the simulation. Rather than passively existing within it, we become active participants engaged in a dialogue with the structure of reality itself.
Ultimately, there's very little downside to this: If we try to communicate with our overlords and it turns out we really are in a simulation, we might actually succeed in making contact—even if the chances are slim. And if we're not in a simulation? Well, we've still gained community, meaning, and a deeper understanding of ourselves along the way. The potential reward is significant (confirming our reality) and the other outcomes are still positive - so it makes sense to take the bet even if we're not sure.
But here's the catch: what if the simulation creators don't like being discovered? One possible response is the shutdown scenario — basically ending our existence as we know it. This has to be considered in the calculation. It's like deciding whether to open a mysterious door when there's a small chance it leads to paradise, but also a tiny risk it triggers an explosion.
Is the possibility of making contact worth even a small risk of someone hitting the red button?
Bostrom's simulation hypothesis shouldn't be upsetting. If anything, it invites us to reconsider our relationship with reality in new ways.
We may never break out of this simulation—if indeed we are in one—but we can break through to new understandings of our existence. By collectively attempting to communicate with potential simulation architects by deliberately creating statistical anomalies, we assert our consciousness and agency using the tools (or parameters) that we have been given.
In embracing the constraints of our reality while still reaching out for a connection beyond it, we discover something:
The most meaningful response to finding ourselves in a simulation isn't escape but engagement—not breaking out, but breaking through to deeper understanding.
Whether our random actions ever register as alerts to watchful guardians, the attempt itself transforms our experience of reality. And perhaps that transformation—that collective assertion of conscious agency—is itself the most meaningful signal we could send.
Dear reader, as you can see from the types of topics we cover, we do not write for a search algorithm and we do NOT display ads of any kind. That's because with AI, the web business model that we've all known and loved in the past is broken. We believe that being subscription based is a more equitable model - so If you like our content, please consider becoming a member to keep this site going! Also, if you enjoyed this article please consider leaving a tip or sharing on social media! Thank you again for your support and readership.
Is it possible to control a device with your mind alone? Check out my journey exploring the science behind mind-matter interaction.
Lynne McTaggart's The Intention Experiment is worth a read given its ambitious attempt to bridge the worlds of science, spirituality, and personal transformation. Read on to learn more.
Discover ten evidence based strategies to improve your ability to manifest intentions.
Wikipedia has 470 'pseudoscience' articles. I analyzed them by views, edits, and creation date. From flat Earth to crystal healing, the results reveal surprising trends in modern fringe beliefs. Explore what's capturing public imagination.
