A Scientist Says He Has Evidence We Might Live in a Simulation

A familiar sci fi line with a serious twist

Remember the moment in The Matrix when Neo realizes his world is an artfully crafted illusion? It’s a neat plot device instant kung fu lessons, slow motion moral crises, the whole cinematic package. But outside the theater, the simulation hypothesis isn’t just a catchy thought experiment; some researchers treat it as a testable idea. One of them is Melvin Vopson, a physicist at the University of Portsmouth, who’s been arguing that the universe shows signs of being “digital” in a way that could, in principle, be measured.

The kernel of the claim: a new law of information

Vopson’s central move is to extend thermodynamics into the realm of information. We all know the Second Law of Thermodynamics: in an isolated system, entropy loosely, disorder tends to increase. Vopson says information systems behave differently. Drawing on his prior work, he proposes a “Second Law of Infodynamics,” where information entropy doesn’t necessarily rise; in fact, it can fall, even approaching a minimum equilibrium. From that mathematical behavior he sketches a bigger picture: the universe might be optimized, compressed, or otherwise engineered to reduce information load exactly what you’d expect if reality were running on computational hardware.

Where the idea gets oddly specific

This isn’t just hand waving. Vopson points to several arenas where he claims to see this informational balancing act: atomic electron arrangements, cosmological arguments about the universe’s expansion and entropy bookkeeping, and even biology. He argues that some genetic mutation patterns he cites analyses of SARS CoV 2 show a correlation between the dynamics of mutations and the behavior of information entropy. Put bluntly: he reads patterns into genetic change that, to him, look like the system is minimizing information entropy rather than leaving everything up to chance.

Why that would suggest a simulation

The leap to “simulation” comes from computational pragmatism. Vopson notes that running a universe especially a complex, high resolution one would demand enormous memory and processing. So a hypothetical simulator would benefit from inbuilt data optimization: compress where you can, compute only what’s needed, minimize redundancy. If the universe exhibits persistent information compression across multiple scales (digital data, biology, symmetry in math), then maybe that’s not an accident but a design choice an efficiency hack in the fabric of reality.

A few examples that make the idea tempting and tricky

Think of your phone: apps cache, compress, and lazily load assets so the device doesn’t burn battery or storage. If the cosmos had something analogous regions of reality that are computed only when observed, or biological systems that “prefer” low entropy information states that would look like purposeful optimization. But here’s the rub: humans are excellent at noticing patterns and then telling pattern y stories. A recurring motif is not proof of intent; it can be an emergent property or a statistical quirk. The same way you might argue that tree rings prove a conspiracy of forests, rather than the straightforward physics of seasonal growth.

What the scientific community actually needs

Vopson’s ideas are provocative, and provocation is valuable. But calling something evidence isn’t the same as providing a robust, reproducible demonstration. To move from suggestive correlations to scientific consensus, you need predictive power: a testable hypothesis that rules out the obvious alternative explanations and produces new, falsifiable predictions. Right now, there are plenty of counter papers arguing that trends interpreted as “digital signatures” can arise from well understood physical or biological mechanisms. So Vopson’s proposals are better seen at least for the moment as hypotheses worth testing, not as nails hammered into the coffin of physical realism.

The Darwin twist and why it raises eyebrows

One of the bolder claims Vopson makes concerns evolution. He suggests mutations are not purely random but occur in ways that reduce information entropy. That’s a heavy claim because it edges up against deep, well tested parts of evolutionary theory. If mutation bias exists, it’s a biochemical question driven by DNA chemistry, repair mechanisms, and selective pressures rather than an obvious sign of digital compression. In other words, biology can offer mechanisms that mimic “optimization” without needing to invoke a meta computer running the show.

Skepticism, curiosity, and the middle ground

Where does that leave us? A balanced response feels right: curiosity plus skepticism. Vopson’s framework asks useful questions and points to empirical patterns that deserve careful analysis. Yet extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The simulation idea is seductive because it reframes frustrating anomalies as design features. But it’s also easy to overreach mistaking unexplained patterns for proof of intent, instead of invitations to dig deeper into physical mechanisms.

If it were true, what would change?

Let’s play the thought experiment for a second. If future work showed robust, repeatable signs of systematic information compression across disparate physical systems, the implications would be profound philosophically and technologically. We might develop new understandings of how information, matter, and computation interact. Practically, though, day to day science and engineering would look much the same; you don’t get better fusion reactors overnight simply because the universe “compresses” data. Still, such a discovery would shift foundational metaphysics and spark a thousand follow ups.

Bottom line: an intriguing hypothesis, not a verdict

Melvin Vopson has pushed a neat, testable idea: treat information like a thermodynamic quantity and see where it leads. That road might illuminate something deep, or it might dissolve under closer inspection. Either outcome would be useful. Right now, the claim that we live in a simulation is not proven; it’s an open, lively question one that sits at the intersection of physics, information theory, and philosophy. And honestly, that’s the fun part: we get to tease apart the evidence, design sharper tests, and maybe learn something unexpected along the way.

Open Your Mind !!!

Source: PopTech