For audio version (21m16s) click on arrow below:
[Just a brief heads-up before you start: don’t miss the reference in this article to my warning on possible dangers of AI, published in a leading computer magazine almost half a century ago.]
How Real Is Our Reality?
For some long time scientists, philosophers and others have pondered - and at times argued - over the question: Is the whole of what we experience as ‘reality’ actually just a massive, and massively complex, simulation? Now, it seems, a group of physicists at the University of British Columbia (Okanagan) have concluded that is not just very unlikely - it is in fact an impossibility.
This conclusion is based on the premise that such a simulation would be driven by some sort of hyper-supercomputer (or an alien equivalent) which would create that pseudo-reality algorithmically, i.e. by various logical processes probably way beyond our comprehension. But, say the research team, it can be shown by logical reasoning that no such algorithmic processes could generate a simulated reality to match the features of the universe we inhabit, no matter how complex they may be.
The researchers point to characteristics of our reality which are outside the scope of any algorithmic process. In the same way that it can be shown conclusively, for example, that there can only ever be five regular 3-dimensional polyhedra (at least in normal space) anywhere in the universe, the team propose absolute limitations on algorithmic processes which preclude artificial creation of a reality like ours.
However, this is tricky ground to be treading on. It’s very easy in such a situation to slip into implicit assumptions without even realising we’re doing so. Just as an example, if someone had suggested to Charles Babbage the possibility of a device with the capabilities of a quantum computer he would surely have dismissed the concept as impossible - as it was in terms of the physics of his time. Just as the algorithmic capabilities introduced by quantum superposition and quantum entanglement were way beyond the conceptual reach of scientists of Babbage’s era, it’s surely very risky to assume that there could never be any advance that could supersede current thinking on the limitations of what’s possible (or ever will be).
More to the point, there’s the real possibility of getting into a fixed mindset - again without realising one is doing so - taking the view ‘This is how things are done’, rather than ‘This is how we do things’. It’s not impossible, in fact it’s eminently likely, that an alien intelligence (particularly one sufficiently highly evolved to construct a cosmic-scale simulation) may not think in terms of algorithms at all but rather in terms of constructs or concepts which wouldn’t make sense to us. To dismiss such a possiblity out of hand is to limit one’s own conceptual ability.
[Side note: the research team cite, as an example of a non-algorithmic construct in our reality, the sentence: “This true statement is not provable”. Such a statement defies analysis, since it cannot be either true and provable as such, or untrue. But this is just a matter of semantics; such a self-referential statement has no bearing on the structure of reality. I made this point with a very similar statement in my first sci-fi story over 45 years ago warning of possible dangers of AI (published in an early issue of Practical Computing when it was an out-and-out hobbyist mag): no respectable computer is going to be flummoxed by a simple play on words.]
But back to simulated realities. These come in a variety of forms - we might even say a variety of levels. Shakespeare famously told us 400 years ago that “All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players” (though he wasn’t the first to make this observation). Far earlier than this - 2400 years ago - Plato likened our experience of ‘reality’ to that of prisoners in a cave who see shadows on a wall cast by objects passing behind them, which they cannot see: those objects are the true reality, the shadows they experience are a poor facsimile of that reality.
More recently, TV and film have brought us various simulation scenarios, most notably the holodeck of Star Trek. This concept is extensively developed over several series, but almost without exception those experiencing the simulation are fully aware that the environment they’re experiencing is simulated - in most cases choosing the nature of that simulation themselves. By contrast, the lead character in The Truman Show is unaware until almost the very end of the film that his whole life experience has taken place within a ‘simulated’ environment, scripted for the entertainment of others and peopled by actors who knowingly form a key part of that simulation. The most comprehensive form of simulation is surely typefied by The Matrix, in which the perceived physical experience of the vast majority of those involved is dramatically different from their actual physical experience. Note that in such a scenario it would not even be necessary for the subjects to actually have the form which they perceive themselves to have - nor indeed any physical form at all, as we understand it.
This overview wouldn’t be complete without a reference to Mr Benn, a 1970s animated BBC children’s TV series initially based on books published in the late 1960s. In each episode Mr Benn swaps his black suit and bowler hat for the outfit of a particular type of character: cowboy, spaceman, pirate, caveman, etc. He then finds himself in an environment suited to that character, where he takes on a persona to match his outfit and surroundings and experiences an adventure appropriate to that persona (and to the level of the young audience). At the end of each episode he returns to the dressing-up shop, where he trades his outfit for his suit and bowler hat and returns to his London home.
This last example of a ‘simulated’ environment is arguably the most complete and the most rewarding, being a ‘total immersion’ situation: without losing his own identity the subject not only experiences a specifically tailored environment, he himself actively becomes part of that scenario by adopting the identity, and the actions, of one who constitutes an integral element of that setting. Whilst of course catering for a very young audience, and so being quite simplistic, the concept is readily scalable.
So what about us?
So are we living in a simulation, and may we even be part of that simulation ourselves?
The first question to ask in relation to any simulation is: What is it a simulation of? What exactly is being simulated? The word ‘simulation’ is derived from the Latin ‘simulatio’, which means ‘imitation’ - so a simulation must be based on something that it’s imitating. All of the four examples above are based on actual real-life situations, or at least situations which are conceivable, based on real-life experience. Even simulations of devices or scenarios which are not realistically feasible, such as an antigravity device or unaided human flying, are derived from ideas which can be conceptualised. [Note that any terrestrial computer model, however sophisticated, must have its roots in human-originated concepts - possibly extended by natural phenomena.]
If our reality is a simulation, then, it follows that it must be based on some higher order of reality: whilst I may create a level of intellectual reasoning superior to my own - that’s a key objective of AI - consciousness is an inner awareness that can’t be enhanced by any degree of reasoning, however logical. In fact, logic can be an impediment to conscious awareness, since consciousness may perceive things that logic cannot fathom.
It’s beyond doubt that the reality we experience is a fabrication of some sort; the only question is whether that fabrication is the outcome of a sequence of random processes or the result of conscious intention at some higher level. The initial material output from the Big Bang (itself either an unfathomable random event or the deliberate act of an unfathomable consciousness) was ultra-hot quark-gluon plasma, a fluid made up largely of the fundamental building blocks of nucleons, the particles that together form the nuclei of atoms (protons & neutrons). After around 380,000 years - the so-called (misnamed) Recombination Epoch - the various particles slowed down enough for those protons to team up, each with one electron, to form the very first atoms: this was made possible by the remarkable-coincidence / intentional-arrangement that each electron, despite being barely half a thousandth the mass of a proton, carries exactly the same magnitude of charge in the opposite sense, linking the two like the stud and socket in a pair of lego bricks - a perfect setup for building a reality. This ideal construction-kit arrangement was extended a great deal further by the intervention of that handy attractive force, gravity, which pulled those atoms together in vast numbers to form next-level reality-building engines, aka stars. These amazing advanced-level manufacturing plants not only forced atoms together to form more complex atoms - essential for any serious reality-making - they also, as a by-product, pushed out (and continue to do so) the vast amounts of energy equally crucial to this cosmic construction project. Periodically these stars would (and still do), in various ways, release trillions of tons of those new atoms into the void, seeding the birth of new stars in many cases with solid rocky planets, thanks to those heavier atoms.
Those rocky planets - or at least one of them - have an absolutely crucial role in this ‘Project Reality’. The most amazing reality would be absolutely meaningless if there were no observers there to experience it. And any observer(s) would need somewhere to evolve.
Which brings us to our first key point: if the physical universe is indeed a cosmic-size simulation, then our physical forms are an integral part of that simulation. Unlike the Star Trek crew in the holodeck or Mr. Benn on his adventures, we didn’t walk into a created environment; just like the atoms and the stars, our bodies have been formed as part of that created environment.
The situation is nothing like so clear-cut, though, when it comes to the matter of life. Self-organisation & self-replication (autopoiesis), essential precursors to life, could arguably emerge from random evolutionary processes (see Fritjof Capra’s excellent treatise, The Web of Life, summarised here). But self-awareness and self-determination (autonomy, freewill) require properties of mind/consciousness beyond the purely physical; these qualities of higher life forms can’t be explained in terms of physical processes, however complex. Attempts to pin down causes of consciousness in such terms appear to be based on post hoc rationalisation supported by circular reasoning, as follows: consciousness is an integral part of human makeup; we were brought into form by the evolutionary process; therefore consciousness is a natural consequence of the evolutionary process. It ain’t necessarily so!
Clearly an artificial construct couldn’t of itself embody freewill & self-determination; such abstractions would be meaningless without any self-defined purpose. It could, though, act as a container or vehicle for a node of consciousness grafted into it from the higher-order intelligence (if such exists) responsible for its formation. [If no such intelligence exists then we’re back to square one with the question of “what is consciousness and where did it come from?”]
The noted mathematician & thinker Sir Roger Penrose has proposed a solution to The Hard Problem of Consciousness in which features of the brain may be responsible for non-computable quantum processes. This ‘explanation’, like various ‘explanations’ in Physics, seems to offer a possible ‘how’ something happens without addressing the ‘why’. Consciousness requires both a ‘why’ & a ‘how’: why certain decision states are reached, if not through pure logical reasoning; and how those decision states are held and processed in a non-computable quantum form in microscopic brain structures. Penrose’s proposal offers a possible pathway whereby signals from a non-physical source may trigger non-random ‘collapse’ of quantum wavefunctions, prompting thoughts or actions which might be considered intuitive, the interaction of non-physical consciousness with physical form.
So, in brief: the physical realm - our reality - was put together over almost 14 billion years (judging by our time-sense) from the raw energy of the Big Bang (whatever that might have been). This includes our own physical forms. Somehow those forms have been imbued with a quality we refer to as ‘consciousness’ which is not part of each of those physical forms but which gives each the capacity for self-awareness and self-determination - freewill. The only credible source for such a non-mechanistic non-random characteristic is the higher-order intelligence responsible for construction of our physical reality, including our physical bodies: without such a higher intelligence the only options for any development are deterministic and/or random processes, both inadequate for explanation of consciousness.
Simulated, or emulated, self-determination is an oxymoron, a self-contradiction. Consciousness is either real or it’s not; a puppet with a programmed-in appearance of freewill is still just a puppet. Consciousness could only be conferred on its creations by such a higher intelligence by embedding within each such construction a spark of is own consciousness. This would make each such hybrid entity an autonomous node of that higher-order consciousness, coupled with the means to express itself in the physical realm and also to experience the sensations of interacting with that realm in all its complexity. This is surely a most profound means of self-realization by that transcendent intelligence, whereby unthinkable numbers of fragments of its own being, each effectively independent, are set in an environment and a form such that they may interact with that environment and with one another. In that situation every nuance of such interactions may be teased out, every sensation of experiencing the highs and lows of spacetime existence felt, and every ‘personality trait’ of all those separate-but-unified sparks of consciousness honed and polished to an end beyond our comprehension.
So, to return to our original squestion: Is our reality actually a simulation?
From the physical human point of view, definitely not. We are clearly actual living creatures, as real as the nose on your face (to coin an idiom). We can trace our ancestry back over the millenia - nothing artificial about that.
But from the perspective of that spark of consciousness looking out through your eyes and mine: yes, this world - this universe - we’re experiencing is the ultimate adventure park, with a significance far beyond anything our mental capacities can stretch to. All the signs are that we are co-creators both shaping and shaped by this reality which expresses eternal truths in terms of space-time metaphors, united in a mission which extends beyond space and time, equipped with spacetime resources - bodies, brains, senses - to navigate this realm created by that same eternal (i.e. non-spatial, non-temporal) consciousness of which our own consciousnesses are fragments. For this situation to be meaningful (i.e. for us to have true freewill), each of these fragments must be autonomous, free of any form of control. This implies a level and form of commitment utterly beyond our comprehension in respect of this ‘universe project’ on behalf of its originating (and sustaining) transcendental intelligence.
The many metaphysical considerations relating to this issue are outside the scope of this post. It’s worth noting, though, that animals other than humans are now generally regarded as conscious, also that many plants, including notably trees, are known to demonstrate advanced levels of sentience. The jury is still out on whether nature as a whole may be regarded as conscious in some sense.
Check out my other Substack posts, and supporting science, at https://r.ihs.ac . You’ll also find books and other (free) resources at www.transfinitemind.com . You can contact me there, too, via a menu option at the top of the page.
See you next time around!