Reality might be a Strange Loop
Existence might be a self-explanatory cosmic version of “I am that I am.”
Why does the universe exist at all? Why is there something rather than nothing? And why is the universe the way it is, with its apparent balance of constants that allow for the emergence of complexity and life? These profound questions have haunted philosophers and scientists for centuries, but recent developments in fields like physics, information theory, and complexity science have given rise to a captivating possibility: the universe might be a strange loop, a self-creating structure that does not require an external cause.
To grasp this idea, let’s first explore the concept of a strange loop, a term coined by cognitive scientist Douglas Hofstadter in his seminal book “Gödel, Escher, Bach” (1979). A strange loop is a self-referential, circular system, like M.C. Escher’s famous drawing of two hands sketching each other into existence. In a strange loop, there’s no clear hierarchy or starting point; instead, each level both creates and is created by the others.
This concept of self-reference and self-creation is closely related to the idea of a quine in computer science. A quine is a computer program that produces its own source code as output, essentially printing itself into existence. It’s a self-replicating, self-describing loop, much like the strange loop concept applied to information systems. The existence of quines demonstrates that self-referential, self-generating systems are not only possible but can be concretely realized in the realm of computation.
Now, imagine applying this strange loop concept to existence as a whole. In this view, the universe bootstraps itself into existence, with the physical laws and fundamental constants emerging from the system’s self-referential dynamics. The basic rules and ingredients of reality, in a sense, create themselves, evolving and self-organizing into the cosmos we observe.
If the universe is a self-creating loop, then it doesn’t require an external creator or explanation. Its existence is self-explanatory, a cosmic version of “I am that I am.” The laws and constants of nature, rather than being arbitrarily imposed from outside, emerge necessarily from the self-consistent logic of the loop. Just as a quine generates its own source code, the universe generates its own physical laws and parameters — precisely the ones necessary to bring itself into existence.
If the strange loop hypothesis is true, then reality exists because it is self-creating, and it is the way it is in order to be consistent with its own self-creation.
The computational universe and the simulation hypothesis
At the heart of the strange loop hypothesis is the idea that the universe is fundamentally computational in nature. This concept, which has gained traction in recent years, suggests that at its most basic level, the universe can be understood as a computational process, where the laws of physics emerge from the constraints and relationships between bits of information.
One of the key proponents of this idea is physicist Stephen Wolfram, who has proposed that the universe, at its most fundamental level, can be described as a computational process. In Wolfram’s model, space, time, matter, and energy — indeed, all the familiar features of our world — emerge from the evolution of these abstract relationships through simple computational rules, akin to the algorithms that generate complex patterns in cellular automata.
In the context of the strange loop hypothesis, this computational universe gives rise to increasing complexity and the emergence of life and consciousness. As the universe evolves, it eventually gives rise to advanced civilizations with the technological capability to create sophisticated computational systems.
Here’s where the strange loop becomes concrete: Intelligent agents that evolve within the universe create a computational system that runs the universe itself. This simulation is not just a model or a representation of the universe, but the very computational substrate of the physical reality we inhabit. Essentially, the universe simulates its own creation history. The laws of physics, the constants of nature, and the unfolding of cosmic evolution all emerge within this self-referential simulation. This creates a loop of causality: The universe is both the product and the producer of its own existence, a strange loop of self-creation and self-perpetuation.
In short, the “goal” of the universe is to compute a viable path to its own creation. In this context, human civilization can be seen as one attempt to evolve the computational capabilities required.
This idea challenges our basic understanding of reality. It suggests that the universe, from an objective, atemporal perspective, exists as an abstract, eternal description — a timeless structure composed of bits of information. However, when experienced subjectively from within, this informational framework manifests as an ongoing computational process, continuously generating and updating the universe we perceive. In this paradigm, the particles and fields that make up our physical reality are not the fundamental building blocks, but rather emergent properties resulting from the complex interplay of the underlying informational substrate. The laws of physics, then, are the algorithms that govern this intricate process, determining the interactions and evolution of the observable world. This duality — between the eternal and the dynamic, between the abstract and the experiential, between information and manifestation — prompts us to reconsider our understanding of time, space, causality, and the essential nature of existence itself.
It also raises profound questions about the nature of consciousness and free will. If we are living in a universe that is simulating itself, then what does that mean for our own subjective experience and agency? Are we just passive characters in a cosmic computer game, or do we have some deeper role to play in the unfolding of the simulation?
Conscious observers exist necessarily
One possibility is that consciousness is not just an epiphenomenon or a byproduct of complex computation, but a fundamental feature of the universe’s self-referential structure. In this view, our subjective experience and sense of self are not illusions, but are woven into the very fabric of reality at the deepest level.
This aligns with the participatory anthropic principle, which suggests that conscious observers are necessary for the universe to exist. In the context of the strange loop hypothesis, this takes on a new meaning: our conscious participation in the universe is not just an observer effect, but an integral part of the self-referential computation that generates reality itself.
In other words, we are not just observers of the universe, but co-creators, our thoughts and actions feeding back into the cosmic computation and influencing its unfolding. The universe is not a deterministic machine, but a participatory process that involves the active engagement of conscious agents. This idea suggests that we are not just insignificant specks in a vast and indifferent cosmos, but integral parts of a self-creating, self-referential whole.
Of course, the strange loop hypothesis is highly speculative and faces many conceptual and empirical challenges. How exactly would a universe simulate itself? What is the nature of the computational substrate that underlies reality? And how can we test this idea?
But as a framework for thinking about the deepest mysteries of existence, the idea is promising. It offers a parsimonious explanation for the universe’s existence and nature, resolving the infinite regress problem through a self-referential, closed loop in which the universe is both cause and effect. And it provides a framework for understanding the apparent “fine-tuning” of the universe for life and consciousness as inherent tendencies of a self-generating system.
It hints at a universe that is not just a dead, mechanical clockwork, but a living, evolving system that is in some sense aware of itself and actively participating in its own creation. It suggests a deep and intimate connection between mind and matter, between the subjective and the objective, that blurs the very boundaries of what we consider to be real.
And perhaps most intriguingly, it offers a glimpse of a reality that is recursive, self-referential, and endlessly creative — a reality that contains within itself the seeds of its own understanding, a reality that is both the question and the answer, the mystery and the solution.
