If We Live in a Simulation, Are You Writing Your Own Code? Or Are You Just a Background Character?
- Natasha Burton
- Jun 16
- 6 min read
By Natasha Burton | The Lotus Healer Perth
The Most Dangerous Question You Can Ask
In my previous article, I explored one of humanity’s oldest questions: What happens after we die?
After examining ancient spiritual traditions, near-death experiences, consciousness research and the work of Dolores Cannon, I arrived at a conclusion that surprised me. The more I explored consciousness, the less convinced I became that matter is the fundamental layer of reality.
That realization naturally led to another question.
What exactly is reality?
For decades, scientists, philosophers and consciousness researchers have debated whether reality is truly what it appears to be. Some have proposed simulation theory.
Others have explored the holographic principle. Still others suggest consciousness itself may be more fundamental than matter.
Personally, I believe we exist within a fractal holographic universe.
Not a computer simulation in the Hollywood sense.
Not a giant cosmic video game.
A living reality in which consciousness, information, geometry, energy and matter are deeply interconnected.
Whether future science ultimately confirms or rejects that perspective remains to be seen. However, I believe there is a far more important question than whether reality is a simulation.
Are you consciously creating your life, or are you simply running a program?
The Software Installed Before You Could Think
The moment you are born, programming begins.
Your family teaches you what is possible and impossible. Schools teach you what is considered true. Society teaches you what success should look like. Political systems teach you how to interpret the world. Media teaches you what to fear.
Most of this occurs before you are old enough to critically examine any of it.
By adulthood, many people are operating from thousands of assumptions they never consciously chose.
Money is difficult to earn.
Life is a struggle.
Success belongs to other people.
Authority figures know best.
Fear is normal.
Working yourself into exhaustion is admirable.
These beliefs may be true, partially true, or completely false. The important point is that most people never stop to ask where they came from.
The program becomes invisible because it has always been running.
What If Reality Is More Like Information Than Matter?
One reason I find the fractal holographic universe model so compelling is that modern physics has already revealed that reality is far stranger than our everyday senses suggest.
When you touch a table, it feels solid.
When you stand on the ground, it feels solid.
Yet physics tells us that atoms are mostly empty space.
The sensation of solidity arises because of electromagnetic interactions between atoms rather than tiny solid particles physically touching one another.
In other words, what appears solid may be something quite different from what we instinctively imagine.
Modern physics already describes matter as excitations of underlying quantum fields. Some physicists have gone further, proposing that information itself may be more fundamental than matter.
Physicist John Wheeler summarized this possibility with the phrase “It from Bit,” suggesting that physical reality may emerge from information.
The holographic principle takes this idea further by proposing that the information describing a volume of space may be encoded on a lower-dimensional boundary.
None of this proves reality is a simulation.
However, it raises a fascinating possibility.
What if matter is not the foundation of reality?
What if matter is the expression of something deeper?
My own view is that matter is real, but it is not the deepest layer.
Matter may be the localized expression of consciousness, information and geometry appearing within a larger field of reality.
The universe appears solid because we experience it through a particular range of interactions, frequencies and perceptions.
The Double-Slit Experiment and the Return of the Observer
One of the most famous experiments in modern physics is the double-slit experiment.
Researchers fired particles toward a barrier containing two slits. When the particles were not measured, they produced an interference pattern associated with waves. When researchers measured which slit the particles passed through, the pattern changed.
This experiment has generated endless debate and countless misunderstandings.
Contrary to popular internet claims, it does not prove that human thoughts magically create reality.
However, it does reveal something remarkable.
Observation appears to matter.
At the quantum level, the observer and the observed may not be as separate as classical physics once assumed.
Reality appears more interactive and participatory than the purely mechanical universe imagined by earlier scientific models.
While physicists continue to debate exactly what the experiment means, one thing is clear: reality behaves in ways that challenge our common-sense understanding of the world.
QBism: Why Some Physicists Think the Observer Matters
One of the most fascinating interpretations of quantum mechanics is known as QBism, short for Quantum Bayesianism.
Most people assume that physics attempts to describe objective reality exactly as it exists independent of human experience.
QBism takes a different approach.
According to QBism, quantum mechanics may not simply describe reality itself. Instead, it may describe an observer’s experiences and expectations of reality.
This is a profound shift in perspective.
For centuries, science attempted to remove the observer from the equation in pursuit of complete objectivity.
QBism suggests the observer may not be removable after all.
Reality is no longer viewed as something happening entirely outside of us.
Experience becomes part of the equation.
Whether QBism ultimately proves correct is less important than what it represents.
Some of the brightest minds in physics are still debating the relationship between observation, experience and reality itself.
The deeper we investigate reality, the more difficult it becomes to maintain the idea of a completely separate observer standing outside the universe.
Robert Edward Grant and the Geometry of Reality
Another researcher who has explored these questions from a different angle is Robert Edward Grant.
Grant argues that geometry, mathematics, harmonics and consciousness may be deeply interconnected. In his view, geometry is not simply a tool humans invented to describe reality. Rather, geometry may represent one of the fundamental organizing principles through which reality expresses itself.
Whether one agrees with all of Grant’s conclusions or not, his work points toward an intriguing possibility.
Perhaps consciousness, information and geometry are not separate things.
Perhaps they are different expressions of the same underlying structure.
This idea resonates strongly with the fractal worldview.
Patterns repeat throughout nature.
Galaxies resemble whirlpools.
River systems resemble blood vessels.
Neurons resemble cosmic networks.
The same mathematical relationships appear repeatedly throughout biology, physics and cosmology.
The microcosm often appears to reflect the macrocosm.
Ancient traditions summarised this principle with a simple phrase:
As above, so below.
The Russians Ask Different Questions
While Western science largely focused on matter and mechanics, several Russian researchers explored questions that sound almost philosophical by comparison.
Researchers such as Nikolai Kozyrev investigated whether time itself might possess active properties rather than functioning as a passive backdrop against which events unfold.
Other researchers explored possible relationships between information, biology and consciousness.
Many of these ideas remain controversial and are not accepted as established science.
Nevertheless, they point toward a recurring theme.
Reality may be far stranger than our current models suggest.
The deeper we investigate consciousness, the more difficult it becomes to maintain a purely mechanical view of existence.
The Background Character Problem
This brings us back to the title of this article.
If reality is fundamentally informational, if observation matters, and if consciousness participates in reality more deeply than we currently understand, then how many people are actually living consciously?
Most people spend their lives reacting.
They react to headlines.
They react to politicians.
They react to algorithms.
They react to fear.
They react to social expectations.
Very few stop to ask why they believe what they believe.
Very few examine the assumptions running beneath their thoughts.
The real danger is not that we live in a simulation.
The real danger is that we never question the script.
Most people spend their entire lives defending beliefs they never consciously chose.
My Personal View
I do not believe awakening is about escaping reality.
I believe it is about becoming conscious within reality.
Whether we live in a simulation, a fractal holographic universe, a quantum field of information or something human language has not yet learned to describe, the challenge remains the same.
Most people inherit beliefs they never consciously chose.
They inherit fears, limitations and assumptions, then spend decades defending them as though they were self-evident truths.
To me, true freedom begins the moment we become aware of the code running beneath our thoughts.
Not because we suddenly possess all the answers.
But because we begin asking better questions.
Perhaps the most important question is not whether reality is a simulation.
Perhaps the most important question is whether you are consciously writing your own code.
Or whether you are still running somebody else’s.
The moment you begin questioning the script, you stop being a background character.
You become an active participant in your own reality.
And that may be the beginning of awakening.
Further Reading
The Double-Slit Experiment
QBism (Quantum Bayesianism)
John Wheeler’s Participatory Universe
Robert Edward Grant on Geometry and Consciousness
Donald Hoffman’s Conscious Agent Theory
The Holographic Principle
The Simulation Hypothesis
Nikolai Kozyrev and Time Research
David Wilcock - The Source Field Investigations
Disclaimer
This article explores philosophical interpretations of consciousness, reality and quantum mechanics. Many of the concepts discussed remain speculative and are not established scientific fact. Readers are encouraged to investigate multiple perspectives and draw their own conclusions.
Comments