Feeding My Ignorance

My eye was caught by an article on the BBC website - as much as by the fact that it seemed to be reporting "old news" as by the headline itself. However, having navigated to the page I discovered that it was, indeed, a good piece - if slightly spoiled by being rather one-sided.

...

The topic was "We might live in a computer program, but it may not matter". As an aside, this appears on BBC.com but seemingly not on BBC.co.uk a search on the UK site does not show the article! Seems you can only find it 'serendipitously'!!!!

This is not a new idea and, in many ways, it is a modern working over of a VERY old idea. That old idea had surfaced at times in the past - albeit replacing "computer program" with the 'technology' of the day. There is no surprise that - given that we have such trouble 'explaining' the world - we continually refresh the stories that we tell to 'explain' it and the way that it works.

For me (at least) the "but it may not matter" would be better phrased as "but we cannot possibly tell" - I know that some would refute that and suggest that there are ways in which we could look for "proof" that everything we experience is "made up" and we are, if not exactly the figments of some one's imagination, perhaps the 'result' of someone's experimentation.

Note that, for ease, I am anthropomorthing the initiators here. In this article it is not necessary (nor even sensible) to try and speculate on who/what has caused us to exist. So when I say "someone" (or similar) I am not assuming that it is anything "like" us. Indeed, the whole point (perhaps) is that we cannot begin to comprehend who/what it actually is.

From here on make the assumption that I am expounding "my take" on the subject. I will admit (very readily) that I am talking from a point of view of extreme "don't know"-ness - so my ideas should not be taken as "the way it is" but simply "a way it could be".

There are many sources for my thinking around this subject - but perhaps the first time I began to really grasp the concept of "other dimensions" was when I read Abbott's Flatland. Prior to reading it my take on "other dimensions" was very much a "childlike" view whereby I sort of accepted that they exist without in any way exploring what that actually meant!

If you haven't read Flatland, then I suggest that it is a great place to start to begin to understand the 'mystery' that is implied whenever we talk about a dimension beyond what we can comprehend. I won't retell the tale here but I do need to precis the fundamental premise on which the story is built in order to use an example.

Flatland, as its name suggests consists of just two dimensions - it is what you have on a sheet of paper (or at least what you would have if the paper was lacking in ANY thinkness - can you imagine such a "world". Your world consists entirely of points and lines. Clearly three dimensional objects - such as cubes and spheres cannot exist in Flatland. Part of the story describes the time when a sphere 'visited' flatland. It appears as a dot first of all and then - as it moves through the plane of Flatland (although, of course, "the plane of" is not a meaningful expression in Flatland - but you get what I mean!!) - it becomes a circle of increasing size until it reaches its full diameter before reducing in size back to a point again.

The Sphere gives one of the residents of Flatland (A Square) a glimpse of the 'extra' dimension. This results in two things relevant to this blog. The first is that A Square, having seen for himself that Flatland is simply a "slice" through the three dimensional world of the Sphere, deduces that the three dimensions may just as well be a "slice" through a four dimensional world. This suggestion is not welcomed by the Sphere who is clearly just as sceptical about the fourth dimension as A Square had been about the third!

Of course, once you accept this premise, it is necessary to extend this further to the extent that any n-dimensional world will clearly understand all n-m dimensional worlds (where m is less than n). However equally the n-dimensional world will find it VERY difficult to conceive of what an n+1 dimensional world looks like.

The second thing is that A Square is ridiculed when he tries to pass on his newfound knowledge to the other inhabitants of Flatland. Even though his "insight" is very much "right and proper" from our point of view - it is, quite simply, unbelievable from the Flatland point of view. How wonderful to find such a simple illustration of how we are - quite literally - blind to things that are outside of our understanding.

Going back to where this all started - when we think of "living in a simulation" we naturally visualise that as something like the Sims or Second Life. These types of "simulation" we understand. They are, if you like, replicates of our own world. They, by and large, obey the same rules and are very much human-created simulations. Thus when we visualise "living in a simulation" we visualise living in something that one of us might have created. There are, however, significant differences when you consider "what would it be like to be a Sim character"?

Clearly they know nothing of the "real" world. They know nothing of how the "player" is manipulating their behaviour - putting them on the right (or wrong) track, etc.. Now "IF" - and yes, it is a big IF!! - we are really just part of some sort of simulation we cannot possibly conceive of the type of "universe" that would have created that simulation.

As I say - this is not a new idea - perhaps the most entertaining version (in my view at least) is that in "The Science of Discworld" - written by Terry Pratchett alongside Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen. An "experiment gone wrong" thanks to some typical 'meddling' by the wizards of the Unseen University has resulted in the creation of a universe and - in particular - Roundworld. The wizards are able to influence events on Roundworld and generally "interfere" as they have a penchant for doing.

Interestingly - here we have a book (written in the real world) that describes "another world" (Discworld) where the academics have created an "artificial" world (Roundworld) which (it is strongly suggested) is actually our own world. This type of literary 'magic' is a sort of equivalent of an Escher drawn world or an impossible triangle. There are a number of books that I have read which in this way blur the lines between an "internal" and an "external" world - in a way similar to a character in a movie stepping out of the screen and into the audience.

Generally we think in terms of the simulator making decisions and affecting the simulation. It is worth considering that there are effects happening in the other direction as well. The mechanisms are (or at least may be) different, but it is still true that the effects happen. This is most clearly seen in the "formal" uses of simulation. Here the simulator has built the simulation in order to assist in understanding a particular situation with a view to guiding decisions in "the real world". Thus the activities of the various objects within the simulation will at the very least inform the decision maker - and thus have an effect on "the real world".

Again "IF" we are part of a great simulation then it is not unreasonable to think that our lives are in some way informing the creators of that simulation and in some way helping them to make decisions. It is interesting to speculate on how, exactly, the boundaries between our "simulation" and the "simulating environment" might be blurred or crossed. That certainly happens between discworld and roundworld in the Pratchett envisioned universe.

So - do we live in a simulation? If we do what implications does that have for how we should behave? Is there any reason to think that it makes any difference?

I don't know! It is, for me, a possibility to consider. The wheels within wheels thinking that is required to get your head around this sort of thing can seem rather daunting and the possibilities are endless in terms of evaluating all the "things to understand" if this is true.

Borrowing from the field of artifical intelligence... one of the aims is to find a way to create autopoiesis - a 'system' capable of sustaining and reproducing itself (to give a simplified definition...). What about if that is what the simulation we are in is all about - is the ultimate aim to create a "simulation" that is a replica (or at least a close replica) of our own universe? It is, perhaps, as likely as many other reasons for being....

Addendum: see also this blog post