New York Times commentator Ross Douthat, in response to a mathematician advocating simulated parallel universes tweeted,
I’d be curious to hear a partisan of this kind of investigation distinguish it from Intelligent Design theory
The mathematician, U Berkley’s Edward Frenkel, writes,
The great logician Kurt Gödel argued that mathematical concepts and ideas “form an objective reality of their own, which we cannot create or change, but only perceive and describe.” But if this is true, how do humans manage to access this hidden reality?
We don’t know. But one fanciful possibility is that we live in a computer simulation based on the laws of mathematics — not in what we commonly take to be the real world. According to this theory, some highly advanced computer programmer of the future has devised this simulation, and we are unknowingly part of it. Thus when we discover a mathematical truth, we are simply discovering aspects of the code that the programmer used.
This may strike you as very unlikely. But the Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom has argued that we are more likely to be in such a simulation than not. If such simulations are possible in theory, he reasons, then eventually humans will create them — presumably many of them. If this is so, in time there will be many more simulated worlds than nonsimulated ones. Statistically speaking, therefore, we are more likely to be living in a simulated world than the real one.
Well, it is a form of intelligent design theory, but almost everyone who accepts the normality of design in nature feels that attributing it to advanced future space aliens is a bit dodgy, even from an advanced theoretical mathematician.
The comments so far read are hardly illuminating. So what do readers think?
See also: The Science Fictions series at your fingertips (cosmology)
In search of a road to reality
Follow UD News at Twitter!
Pardon my naivety – if such it is that prompts me to ask in this particular case; there’s no doubt I’m only a leading expert in the very recherche field of scientific research into Nothing – but isn’t that what God has done? Philip has been on about it for a long time now, hasn’t he? ‘In the beginning was the Word.’
That has the merit over Mr Frenkel’s attribution of invoking a definitive Prime Mover.
“If such simulations are possible in theory, he reasons, then eventually humans will create them — presumably many of them. If this is so, in time there will be many more simulated worlds than nonsimulated ones. Statistically speaking, therefore, we are more likely to be living in a simulated world than the real one.”
What cruel simulator would program in sickness, grief and death? Unless, per chance, He simulated every thing good, and we somehow hosed it up.
I think there would be many good reasons to offer all of those things in a simulation, especially if nobody is forced to enter the simulation. You wouldn’t be a simulation in such a scenario, but a user that is only interfacing with the world of the simulation.
Let’s think about movies. People probably wouldn’t pay to go see a movie that was all lollipops and puppydogs for an hour and a half; they pay good money to go to movies where they get scared to death or cry their eyes out. If you could enter a simulation where there was the possibility of both great joy and tragedy, but knew that you – the real you – could not be harmed by the simulation, even though you would forget where you came from upon entering, would you give it a go?
Hmm – so the logic of mathematics is the arbitrary programming language of an advanced civilisation. Whose own mathematics isn’t logical? So how do they build their sim?
Or is it just another case of infinite regress to a real maths fine tuned by a First Cause God?
Distinguishing it is easy. I’d be curious to hear why anyone thinks intelligent design has any rational relationship with “simulated parallel universes.”
It sounds to me like the tweeter (i) doesn’t understand ID, and (ii) was not really trying to make a substantive point, but rather to point out how silly the “simulated parallel universes” idea is — in other words, it is as bad as ID.
It was simply a jab, an insult, with ID as the foil. Nothing substantive worth debating here it seems, at least insofar as it relates to ID.
What I would like to know is if we are only a computer simulation programmed by some advanced civilization then wouldn’t it also be a possibility that they are also in a simulation programmed by another simulation, by another simulation, etc. . . Where does this nonsense end?
A simulation would be, almost by definition, intelligently designed (unless you believe that computer programs can write themselves without a programmer 🙂 ). So while not all intelligent design proposals are simulations, all simulations are intelligent designs.
Actually, if quantum mechanics holds up, a simulation is a better model for the universe than a giant mechanical contrivance. For otherwise, how do you explain the fact that atoms behave like waves (see the Bose-Einstein condensate)? How do you explain coherence across long distances (miles in some experiments, and across galaxies in the Wheeler gravitational lensing experiments?
Most game simulations made by humans have secret trapdoors that if entered properly give one special powers, at least temporarily. Maybe prayer is that way. If we are in a simulation, claims to rule out miracle by the supposedly fundamental laws of nature are just that, claims. The programmer of a game may not be all-knowing, but he (or she–most geeks are male) certainly is all-powerful within the simulation. Maybe it is all just a simulation.
Have you ever wondered why a really good computer simulation can give the strong illusion that we are in a different world? Perhaps it is because there is not that much difference between the two simulations. And suppose the creator of the simulation decided to play a character. That character would be him, and at the same time a character. Think of all the debates one could have about the essential nature of that character! Just something to think about.
WJM said: “If you could enter a simulation where there was the possibility of both great joy and tragedy, but knew that you – the real you – could not be harmed by the simulation, even though you would forget where you came from upon entering, would you give it a go?”
Praise God that Jesus did! Alleluia!!!
Except it won’t go well with many within the simulation.
A few notes on the ‘Universe Is A Computer Simulation’ argument. I first became aware of this argument when Lewis Wolpert used it against Dr. Craig to argue that the transcendent reality that this universe must be based on is a computer simulation:
Dr. Craig’s answer, in his usual no nonsense style, was to the point:
In fact the argument for God, and against the universe being merely a computer simulation, has now been formalized:
Another argument against the universe being merely a computer simulation was put forward by Scott Aaronson of MIT
I think that the false notion that the universe ‘could be’ a computer simulation was partly instigated by the fact that the universe is found to be ‘information theoretic’ at its most foundational basis:
And Wheeler’s and Zeilinger’s contention, that reality at its foundation is ‘information theoretic’, is pretty convincing since it is now shown that ‘material’ atoms can be reduced to quantum information and teleported. In fact, all the ‘material’ atoms of an entire human body can, theoretically, be reduced to quantum information and teleported to another position in the universe:
Yet to stop at information, and say that information is THE foundation of reality, and to imagine that a ‘non-physical’ computer (whatever that may be) may be generating that information is to miss another very important point that has also been brought forth from quantum mechanics. Namely it is to miss the fact that consciousness is now also shown by quantum mechanics to a very ‘privileged position’ within the universe, a privileged position which is shown to be even more foundational to reality than the digital information is:
Of somewhat related note, I found this video yesterday and although, mathematically, it is way over my head, I did note that he started out from the correct presupposition of conscious observation being at ‘time 0’ (or something along that line). And although I don’t know enough math to know whether I completely agree with him or not, I did like how he was able, from a consciousness perspective, weave all the various lines of mathematical thought into a coherent whole that seemed, at least to my novice mathematical ability, to make overall sense:
notes of interest:
Verses and Music:
A few notes on the ‘Universe Is A Computer Simulation’ argument. I first became aware of this argument when Lewis Wolpert used it against Dr. Craig to argue that the transcendent reality that this universe must be based on is a computer simulation:
Dr. Craig’s answer, in his usual no nonsense style, was to the point:
In fact the argument for God, and against the universe being merely a computer simulation, has now been formalized:
Another argument against the universe being merely a computer simulation was put forward by Scott Aaronson of MIT
I think that the false notion that the universe ‘could be’ a computer simulation was partly instigated by the fact that the universe is found to be ‘information theoretic’ at its most foundational basis:
And Wheeler’s and Zeilinger’s contention, that reality at its foundation is ‘information theoretic’, is pretty convincing since it is now shown that ‘material’ atoms can be reduced to quantum information and teleported. In fact, all the ‘material’ atoms of an entire human body can, theoretically, be reduced to quantum information and teleported to another position in the universe:
Yet to stop at information, and say that information is THE foundation of reality, and to imagine that a ‘non-physical’ computer (whatever that may be) may be generating that information is to miss another very important point that has also been brought forth from quantum mechanics. Namely it is to miss the fact that consciousness is now also shown by quantum mechanics to a very ‘privileged position’ within the universe, a privileged position which is shown to be even more foundational to reality than the digital information is:
Of somewhat related note, I found this video yesterday and although, mathematically, it is way over my head, I did note that he started out from the correct presupposition of conscious observation being at ‘time 0’ (or something along that line). And although I don’t know enough math to know whether I completely agree with him or not, I did like how he was able, from a consciousness perspective, weave all the various lines of mathematical thought into a coherent whole that seemed, at least to my novice mathematical ability, to make overall sense:
notes of interest:
Verses and Music:
I chuckle when I hear people use “simulation” with regards to a universe or world. What they really mean is that it’s a computed universe, not a “simulated” universe. The universe we live in is the only reality we know, so of course it’s “real”, regardless of how it is implemented or executed (by some super colossal computer operating at a more fundamental level.)
At any rate, the empirical experiments with photons loudly shout at us that we’re living in an algorithmically computed universe.
What precisely is logically nonsensical about it?
I think “computer simulation” should be considered more as an analogy than an example.
I think perhaps a better analogy would be dream states, which is an “experiential simulation”, so to speak, generated by mind, where we find ourselves existing in a manufactured experience.
as to:
I’ve seen this ‘fanciful’ argument before:
Perhaps the outline of the argument is better said here:
Barrow and Tippler appealed to a very similar argument to try to explain the fine tuning of the universe:
Moreover, since neo-Darwinists believe that Evolutionary Algorithms, (which are designed by brilliant engineers), are fully capable of mimicking evolutionary processes, and even eventually reaching the point of the computers ‘self-evolving’ to greater and greater heights of undreamed computational power, then, according to their ‘fanciful’ reasoning, it is entirely plausible that we are now living in some type of gigantic Evolutionary Algorithm computer simulation that was programmed by some future humans. One problem with this narrative is that Evolutionary Algorithms have never ‘created’ any functional information over and above what was already programmed into them, thus computers will never pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and ‘self-evolve’:
Here is what Gregory Chaitin, a world-famous mathematician, said about the limits of the computer program he was trying to develop to prove that Darwinian evolution was mathematically feasible:
Here is the video where, at the 30:00 minute mark, you can hear the preceding quote from Chaitin’s own mouth in full context:
Moreover, at the 40:00 minute mark of the video Chaitin readily admits that Intelligent Design is the best possible way to get evolution to take place, and at the 43:30 minute mark Chaitin even tells of a friend pointing out that the idea Evolutionary computer model that Chaitin has devised does not have enough time to work. And Chaitin even agreed that his friend had a point, although Chaitin still ends up just ‘wanting’, and not ever proving, his idea Darwinian mathematical model to be true! In fact the following paper took his toy model apart and found it severely wanting
Even more amazing than Chaitin trying to build a realistic ‘toy’ model that would show Darwinian evolution is remotely feasible is that Chaitin, who has done work directly on Godel’s incompleteness theorem,,,
,,,knows first hand that,,,
Thus Chaitin is ignoring what he knows first hand about mathematics and still believes that some ‘seed’ evolutionary algorithm in a computer would be capable of generating the countless integrated algorithms we find in life. Cognitive dissonance anyone?
Moreover, even taking into account Moore’s law, where computing power doubles every 18 months, there is precious little hope of computers ever being able to realistically simulate the staggering integrated complexity of functional information being found in molecular biology:
Thus, since it is absurd to believe that computers will ever realistically simulate a single human body in a computer simulation, what in blue blazes possesses us with the audacity to believe that the entire universe, and all molecular life in it, can ever be simulated by a computer in the future?
Moreover, besides the insurmountable problem that the unfathomable levels of integrated functional information found in molecular biology, there is another insurmountable problem found for the ‘fanciful’ speculation that we are living in a computer simulation. That insurmountable problem for a computer simulation is the ‘infinity problem’:
Physicists/Mathematicians have been able to ignore the following infinity present in Quantum Mechanics,,,
Physicists/Mathematicians ignore that infinity in Quantum Mechanics by ‘brushing infinity under the rug’
Here is Feynman commenting on his unease with this ‘mathematical sleight of hand’:
I don’t know about Feynman, but as for myself, being a Christian Theist, I find it rather comforting to know that it takes an ‘infinite amount of logic to figure out what one stinky tiny bit of space-time is going to do’:
And even though, by ‘brushing infinity under the rug’, some people may have the hubris to think that we have truly explained ‘what one stinky tiny bit of space-time is going to do’, the fact of the matter is that that the other infinity at black holes in General Relativity refuses to submit to this mathematical sleight of hand and to be unified with Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity:
Yet in spite of this failure for the infinity found at black holes, within General Relativity, to be unified with Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, I’ve found black holes to lend strong support for the Theistic contention of eternal life after death. In Theism, particularly Christian Theism, it is held there are two ultimate destinies for our eternal souls. Heaven or Hell! And in physics we find two very different ‘eternities’ just as Theism has held for millenia. One eternity in physics is found ‘if’ a hypothetical observer were to accelerate to the speed of light. In this scenario time, as we understand it, would come to a complete stop for the hypothetical observer. To grasp the whole ‘time coming to a complete stop at the speed of light’ concept a little more easily, imagine moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light. Would not the hands on the clock stay stationary as you moved away from the face of the clock at the speed of light? Moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light happens to be the same ‘thought experiment’ that gave Einstein his breakthrough insight into e=mc2.
Some may think that time, as we understand it, coming to a complete stop at the speed of light is pure science fiction, but, as incredible as it sounds, Einstein’s infamous thought experiment has many lines of evidence now supporting it.
This following confirmation of time dilation is my favorite since they have actually caught time dilation on film
(of note: light travels approximately 1 foot in a nanosecond (billionth of a second) whilst the camera used in the experiment takes a trillion pictures a second):
This higher dimension, ‘eternal’, inference for the time framework of light is also warranted, by logic, because light is not ‘frozen within time’, i.e. light appears to move to us in our temporal framework of time, yet it is shown that time, as we understand it, does not pass for light. The only way this is possible is if light is indeed of a higher dimensional value of time than our temporal time is otherwise it would simply be ‘frozen in time’. Another line of evidence that supports the inference that ‘tomorrow can exist simultaneously with today and yesterday’, at the ‘eternal’ speed of light, is visualizing what would happen if a hypothetical observer were to approach the speed of light. Please note, at the 3:22 minute mark of the following video, when the 3-Dimensional world ‘folds and collapses’ into a tunnel shape as a ‘hypothetical’ observer moves towards the ‘higher dimension’ of the speed of light, (Of note: This following video was made by two Australian University Physics Professors with a supercomputer.).
Moreover, we have ‘observational’ evidence that corroborates what our physics is telling us in that people who have had deep Judeo-Christian Near Death Experiences (NDEs) report both ‘eternity’ and traveling through the tunnel to a higher dimension:
Moreover, as with special relativity, in General Relativity we find that temporal time slows down the further down in a gravitational well a person is:
As well, as with any observer accelerating to the speed of light, it is found that for any ‘hypothetical’ observer falling to the event horizon of a black hole, that time, as we understand it, will come to a complete stop for them. This is because the accelerative force of gravity at black holes is so intense that not even light can escape its grip:
But of particular interest to the ‘eternal framework’ found for General Relativity at black holes;… It is interesting to note that entropic decay (Randomness/Chaos), which is the primary reason why things grow old and eventually die in this universe, is found to be greatest at black holes. Thus the ‘eternity of time’ at black holes can rightly be described as ‘eternities of decay and/or eternities of destruction’.
i.e. Black Holes are found to be ‘timeless’ singularities of destruction and disorder rather than singularities of creation and order such as the extreme order we see at the creation event of the Big Bang. Needless to say, the implications of this ‘eternity of destruction’ should be fairly disturbing for those of us who are of a ‘spiritually minded’ persuasion!
Yet, as was noted previously, Gravity, despite intense effort by many brilliant minds,,,,
,,,despite all this effort, Gravity refuses to be unified with Quantum Mechanics. In light of this dilemma that the two very different eternities present to us spiritually minded people, and the fact that Gravity is, in so far as we can tell, completely incompatible with Quantum Mechanics, it is interesting to point out a subtle nuance on the Shroud of Turin. Namely that Gravity was overcome in the resurrection event of Christ:
Personally, considering the extreme difficulty that many brilliant minds have had in trying to reconcile Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity and Gravity, I consider the preceding nuance on the Shroud of Turin to be a subtle, but powerful, evidence substantiating Christ’s primary claim as to being our Savior from sin, death, and hell:
Supplemental notes:
Verse and Music: