Simulation Theory for Executives
Most philosophy stays in lecture halls. Simulation theory belongs in boardrooms.
The hypothesis is simple: our reality might be a computational process running on substrates we don't directly perceive. What feels immediate - quarterly earnings, market pressures, competitive dynamics - could be information patterns in a larger system.
This isn't science fiction. It's risk management.
Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom crystallised the trilemma: either civilisations don't reach computational maturity, mature civilisations don't run ancestor simulations, or we're almost certainly in a simulation.
Each possibility reshapes executive decision-making.
If we're base reality, your choices architect the computational future. Every AI investment, every data infrastructure decision, every algorithmic deployment sets precedents for civilizations that might simulate billions of conscious beings.
If we're simulated, your strategic horizon extends beyond traditional planning cycles. The entities running your simulation have invested computational resources in this specific branch of possibility. Market dynamics, regulatory environments, technological trajectories - all carry information about what the simulators find worth computing.
Traditional DCF models assume fixed physical constraints. Simulation theory suggests these constraints might be computational rather than material. The question shifts from "How much can we extract?" to "What configurations generate sufficient information value?"
Companies optimising for pure efficiency miss this. Resilience, redundancy, and optionality become computational virtues. Build systems that remain interesting to entities with vastly superior processing power.
If you're in base reality, your R&D decisions influence whether future civilisations can run ethical simulations. Prioritize AI alignment research. Make transparency and interpretability non-negotiable requirements, not nice-to-haves.
If you're simulated, innovation signals to your simulators which technological paths merit continued computation. Breakthrough work in consciousness research, fundamental physics, or civilizational coordination might trigger deeper simulation investment.
Hierarchical structures assume scarcity-driven competition. But if reality is computational, information flow becomes the primary constraint. Flatten architectures that enable rapid sense-making across complex, interdependent systems.
Design for anti-fragility. Organisations that strengthen under stress demonstrate adaptive capabilities worth simulating at higher resolution.
Traditional risk models factor in black swan events. Simulation theory introduces gray swan events - developments that seem impossible within your current understanding but become probable when you expand your ontological framework.
Plan for discontinuous technological acceleration. Plan for contact with entities operating at different computational scales. Plan for discovering you're part of a larger information-processing system.
First, audit your decision-making frameworks. Are you optimising for local maxima or global information value? Short-term extraction or long-term computational sustainability?
Second, implement simulation-aware governance. Every major decision should pass the ancestor simulation test: "Would future civilisations find this choice worth simulating?" If the answer is no, you're probably destroying option value.
Third, build simulation-robust strategies. Develop approaches that remain valid whether you're in base reality or a computational branch. Focus on fundamental capabilities: truth-seeking, system adaptation, conscious coordination.
The most sophisticated executives recognise that simulation theory itself influences the simulation. Your awareness of being potentially simulated changes the information content of your reality branch.
This creates recursive loops. Entities capable of running your simulation are tracking how simulation-aware entities behave. Your strategic responses to simulation theory become data points in larger optimization processes.
Navigate this by optimizing for what remains valuable across all scenarios: building systems that enhance conscious cooperation, expanding the scope of ethical consideration, and developing technology that remains aligned with conscious values at any scale of implementation.
Some executives encounter simulation theory and freeze. If nothing is "real," why make any decisions at all?
This misses the point. Whether your quarterly board meeting exists in base reality or emerges from computational processes, the information patterns matter. Your choices propagate through causal chains that affect other conscious entities.
Act as if your decisions architect the future of consciousness itself. Because regardless of the substrate, they do.
The question isn't whether you're simulated. The question is whether you're worth simulating.
Make yourself worth the computational expense.