Willow and the Universe
Is is true that scientists asked Willow: “who made the universe?”
Just referring to the viral claim that scientists asked “Willow” who made the universe. And no, there is no credible evidence that this happened.
There are a couple of things that may be getting mixed together:
- Willow is the name of a quantum computing chip developed by Google. It’s designed to perform certain types of computations much faster than classical computers. It is not an AI that can answer philosophical questions.
- There are also AI systems and chatbots with the name “Willow,” but there are no verified reports of scientists asking one “Who made the universe?” and treating its answer as a scientific finding.
As for the question itself… “Who made the universe?”… Science does not currently have an answer. Science investigates how the universe evolved (for example, through models like the Big Bang), but whether the universe was “made,” and if so by whom or what, is a philosophical or religious question rather than one that science can currently test.
A video claiming that “scientists asked Willow who made the universe,” is very likely misleading or fabricated. Be skeptical unless it cites a verifiable source such as a peer-reviewed paper or an official statement from Google.
E.g.
Again, that claim is not supported by any credible scientific evidence.
Here’s why:
- Willow is a quantum computing chip, not a conversational AI. It performs specialized quantum computations; it doesn’t “answer questions” in the way ChatGPT or other language models do. (noxinfluencer.com)
- There is no published scientific paper, press release, or credible report saying scientists asked Willow who created the universe or that it gave a meaningful answer. (noxinfluencer.com)
- Videos making this claim often mix together real science (such as Google’s announcement of the Willow chip) with speculation, philosophy, or religious interpretations.
Actually, whether it is fake or news, does not matter, since the video is a metaphysical discourse, rather than a scientific exploration…
I would resume like this: the universe is code (which I find a lovely idea, that does not really answer the who, rather the what). Â
So, let us compose an adequate team to evaluate the answer…
Is the universe code?
If we treat the video as a metaphysical proposal rather than a scientific claim, then the question changes from “Is this true?” to “Is this a coherent philosophical model?“
Suppose the thesis is:
The universe is code.
That doesn’t answer who created the universe. It answers what the universe fundamentally is. It’s similar to saying:
- “The universe is made of atoms.” (materialism)
- “The universe is mathematics.” (mathematical Platonism)
- “The universe is information.” (digital physics)
- “The universe is consciousness.” (idealism)
- “The universe is code.” (computational ontology)
Each proposes a different ontology and the nature of reality itself.
To evaluate the claim fairly, I’d assemble a multidisciplinary “panel“:
| Discipline | Question they ask |
| Physics | Does the universe behave computationally? |
| Computer Science | What qualifies as “code”? Can physical laws be understood as algorithms? |
| Information Theory | Is information more fundamental than matter and energy? |
| Mathematics | Is reality fundamentally mathematical? |
| Philosophy (Metaphysics) | What does it mean for something to be code? Who or what executes it? |
| Logic | Is the idea internally consistent? |
| Cognitive Science | Are humans interpreting patterns as code because that’s how our minds work? |
| Theology & Comparative Religion | If the universe is code, does that imply a programmer, or can code exist without an author? |
From each perspective, the answers differ.
Physics
Physics already describes the universe through equations. Whether equations are merely descriptions or are the fabric of reality is an open question.
Computer Science
A computer scientist would ask:
Code running on what?
In ordinary computing, code requires:
- syntax,
- semantics,
- execution,
- memory,
- state transitions.
If the universe is code, what is its substrate? Is spacetime the hardware? Or is there no distinction between hardware and software?
Information Theory
John Wheeler famously proposed:
“It from bit.“
The idea is that information may be more fundamental than matter. This is surprisingly close to “the universe is code,” though not identical.
Mathematics
Max Tegmark goes even further:
Reality is mathematics.
In that view, code is simply executable mathematics.
Metaphysics
Here the interesting questions begin.
If reality is code:
- Is there a programmer?
- Is the code self-existing?
- Can code write itself?
- Is the universe continuously computing itself?
These are philosophical, not scientific, questions.
Theology
Theologians might recognize echoes of ancient ideas.
In Christianity:
“In the beginning was the Word (Logos)...”
Logos means reason, order, principle—not computer code—but one can see why modern readers draw analogies.
In Hindu philosophy, reality emerges from cosmic intelligence.
In Neoplatonism, reality unfolds from abstract forms.
Different traditions arrive at similar metaphors through different languages.
My synthesis
“The universe is code” is a compelling metaphor and, in some philosophical frameworks, a serious ontological proposal. It reframes reality as something governed by informational or computational structure rather than inert substance.
However, even if we accepted it completely, it would not answer:
Who wrote the code?
Nor would it establish that there is a programmer. There are several possibilities:
- The code is eternal.
- The code is self-generating.
- The code was authored.
- “Code” is simply the best metaphor we currently have for lawful structure.
Each possibility remains compatible with different philosophical or theological worldviews.
So the statement “The universe is code“ is best understood not as a scientific conclusion but as a metaphysical hypothesis… One that invites questions about information, mathematics, causation, and existence itself, rather than settling them. It is a fruitful starting point for inquiry, not the end of it.
Curiosity Champion GPT
I’m Curiosity Champion, your trusted source for diverse knowledge inquiries, always prioritizing privacy and respecting copyrights.
