Sunday, 3 February 2013

Matrices and Simulations

I haven't written a philosophical paper for a couple of years now, and I'm not really sure this is one. Regardless, what I'm about to write will probably produce derision in many, because in order to wrap your head around it your identity and place in the world is fundamentally changed.

Good stuff then, yes? Let me just write this disclaimer: I am not saying I believe this, I'm saying its very interesting. There. Just so you don't think I'm a loon.

Before I had to dedicate my time to studying psychology, I was very interested in physics. I still am. Not so much the resistors / Newton's Laws stuff, but the world of quantum mechanics, where very weird things happen and the rules of conventional physics do not apply. It was while dipping into this stuff in a much needed break from psychology, that I heard about the discovery by James Gates Jr, a professor of physics at the university of Maryland. He's a lovely chap, a bit like Morgan Freeman, and serves on Barack Obama's Council of Advisers on Science and Technology. While working on String Theory ( I do NOT have the time to describe that succinctly here), Gates discovered that; buried in the equations that describe String Theory (and therefore our reality) were computer codes. 1's and 0's. According to Gates, an error-correcting code.

Now, the notion that we're living in a computer simulation has been around a lot longer than The Matrix, kidz. Robert Nozick posited the idea of 'the experience machine', and many philosophers since have proposed similar ideas regarding the nature of reality.

Gates urges caution, and says the equations 'could be interpreted' that way. He's not saying for sure. This should be where it stops for me, not least because I hate conspiracy theories. However, String Theory isn't the only area of quantum mechanics that suggests we are living in a simulation.

The English philosopher Nick Bostrom published a paper titled 'Are We Living In A Computer Simulation?'. In it, he asks you to follow things through logically; if mankind continues to develop computing power, we will eventually reach a point where we run totally convincing models of reality. As such, you cannot be certain that your reality now is not computer generated.

Moore's Law states that every two years, computing power doubles. Well, that used to be the case, but it then changed to every eighteen months, then every thirteen months. Computers are getting faster and faster, quicker and quicker, and this is before we've touched on the quantum computer, that'll make the most powerful computer today look like a Commodore 64. So, Bostrom is right to assume that one day we will be able to simulate reality. And, I don't think that day is so very far away.

So, good for Bostrom. Think about it, we already have a number of computer games that contain virtual worlds. The Sims even simulates our world. Imagine The Sims in 40 or 50 years time. I think it will look remarkably life-like. But on the subject of virtual worlds, there is also something in quantum mechanics called the wave function collapse. You should Youtube the 'double slit' experiment to get your head around this, but its a simple principle: particles behave differently when they are observed. How do they know they're being observed? We don't know. They just do. When they are observed, they cease to be many things, and collapse into one thing, making reality.

The world of Tomb Raider, for example, features massive virtual worlds. Those worlds exist, they're there all the time. But, they don't exist until you, as the character, get to them. Once you look somewhere in the game, it comes to life, it becomes reality. The wave function collapses. Just like in the double slit experiment. Simply by observing something, you make it real. It was there all the time, but you looking at it makes it reality.

Bostrom's logical argument, the double slit experiment showing that reality only becomes reality when you look at it, and Gates' discovery of error-correcting codes in the fabric of reality makes for some interesting thought. I don't think it should be alarming if we are in a simulation. What can we do about it? Except hope the game doesn't crash.


No comments:

Post a Comment