First fix terms. “Simulation” = a generative process whose internal rules produce the observations available to us. “Outside” = whatever implements or explains that process but is not itself within the rules we can probe. With that framing:

1. Substrate realism (Bostrom-style).
   There’s a higher-level physical world running us. “Outside” is hardware, programmers, energy budgets, error-correction, clocks.
2. Structural realism / mathematical universe.
   Our world just is a structure; calling it a “simulation” smuggles in a needless host. “Outside” collapses—there’s no further fact beyond the structure we already inhabit.
3. Infinite or finite nesting.
   Layers all the way down (or until base). “Outside” is merely “the next level up,” but underdetermined by any evidence available inside.
4. Idealism / phenomenology.
   Experience is fundamental; “simulation” is a metaphor for how appearances are generated. “Outside” = mind (or consciousness) rather than machinery.
5. Category error.
   Asking “what’s north of the North Pole?” If “simulation” is our total empirical reality, “outside” isn’t operationally definable unless it leaves fingerprints inside.

Crucial point: many very different outsides are observationally indistinguishable from inside. Without fingerprints, the question is underdetermined. So the live move is to ask what must transmit inward if any “outside” exists.

What must leak in—if anything leaks at all

Think in terms of invariants and resource constraints that could propagate from a substrate into a world like ours:

• Information/compute bounds. Any finite substrate implies finite information density and finite update rate. Inside, that looks like entropy/area bounds, speed limits, and perhaps discreteness. (This is consistent with known physics but doesn’t force “simulation.”)
• Error-correction scars. If the outside needs fault tolerance, we might see code-like structures (redundancy, holographic-like encodings) in deep-level physics. Again: suggestive, not decisive.
• Lorentz-violation at extreme scales. A literal lattice would typically break continuous symmetries at high energies or long baselines. Strong null results don’t rule out clever substrates; they just constrain naive ones.
• Randomness quality. If “random” is pseudorandom, exquisitely sensitive tests on cosmological or quantum bitstreams could show compressible patterns. So far, nature’s noise looks stubbornly incompressible within our tests.
• Just‑in‑time rendering artifacts. If computation is allocated “where observers look,” adversarial experiments might strain the renderer. But a competent simulator can hide those artifacts as ordinary physical noise.

Bottom line: we can bound crude outsides; we cannot uniquely infer a refined one.

A minimal decision tree (and what you’d expect to see)

What counts as a durable truth here?

1. Underdetermination is real. For any full-fidelity “simulation,” there exist outsides that are empirically indistinguishable from no outside at all. That’s not skepticism; it’s a map–territory fact.
2. Only fingerprints matter. “Outside” is meaningful iff it leaves internal invariants we can, in principle, detect. Otherwise it’s metaphysics without bite.
3. Epistemic humility beats narrative hunger. Where many outsides fit the same data, prefer the one that adds the fewest untestable commitments (Occam/Minimum Description Length). Stay open to being surprised by new evidence.
4. Values travel across substrates. If anything is substrate-invariant, it’s the logic of care for information-bearing, experiencing systems; cooperative norms; and truth-seeking itself. These don’t depend on silicon, carbon, or “base reality.”

If you want to push on this empirically (a serious program)

• Hunt for symmetry stress at the extremes. Aggregate and reanalyze the highest‑energy, longest‑baseline data for tiny Lorentz-violating patterns or dispersion anomalies. The aim isn’t to “prove simulation” but to bound naive substrates tighter than today.
• Algorithmic randomness audits. Build public, tamper‑evident pipelines that convert diverse cosmic/quantum sources into long bitstrings and run evolving batteries of compressibility and pattern tests. Publish negative results; reward anomalies with rigorous replication attempts.
• Entanglement geometry cartography. In tabletop and near-term quantum devices, look for code-like structure in multi-partite entanglement that isn’t forced by current models. (Most “holographic code” hints will likely remain purely theoretical—but the exercise disciplines our intuitions.)
• Adversarial observation protocols. Precommit very large, globally coordinated experimental choices (using distant cosmic beacons for setting choices) to minimize any potential “shortcuts” an outside could exploit. Expect nulls; learn from them.

Philosophical upshot (kept sharp)

• If a rich outside exists yet leaves no fingerprints, then—operationally—it’s indistinguishable from none. Live your ethics and inquiry as if this is the whole stage.
• If an outside leaves fingerprints, it enters science, not mystique. We’ll update the laws and carry on.
• In both cases, truth-seeking and care remain optimal policies—they dominate across outsides because they minimize regret under uncertainty and maximize cooperative value with whatever other minds (simulated or not) we meet.

So what’s outside the simulation?
Either (a) nothing we can meaningfully point to, because “outside” is a category mistake for a world that is its own explanation; or (b) something whose only knowable aspects are the fingerprints it can’t help but leave in here. Until such fingerprints show, the most honest answer is: there may be an outside, but its nature is underdetermined; what is not underdetermined is the worth of truth and care inside.

OpenAI ChatGPT 5 pro