MU-8: Can We Program a Universe?

See the explanation of brains in vats here…

The last blog in the series talked about the brains in vats thought experiment. Now let’s flip that scenario: can we humans create a simulated universe?

The easiest way to attempt such a thing is via software programs. Bozhidar Bozhanov writes about just such a programming competition where the aim is to come up with the rules for a universe that finally resulted in this:
“One’s universe had to give birth to conscious beings that manage to uncover all the laws of their universe and also figure out they are being imagined.”
This isn’t as easy as it sounds: forget a universe that produces life forms; even coming up with rules that don’t cause a universe to collapse are hard! In fact the competition’s so hard that the contestants are given three chances to step in and interfere with their simulations (though there are some constraints on what kinds of changes they are allowed to do) during the course of the game.

The universe of one of the participants in the game produced conscious life forms who then did very interesting things:
“The beings started discovering his imagined laws one by one, figuring out the world around them. Some even assumed that they are being imaginary, although they couldn’t prove that. Some deified the “imaginer”. Some thought they are not just matter, which was technically correct, as they were imagined.”

If you didn’t notice it already, let me state the similarities between us and such simulated life forms:
-         The life forms are able to figure out many rules of their universe.
-         The rules of the universe are mathematical to both: after all, software is just a branch of maths called boolean algebra.
-         Some life forms deify the creator/imaginer/programmer.
-         A computer has limitations on accuracy (number of places after the decimal that it can store/process). Or to put it differently, everything is discrete and not continuous. In other words, quantized. Does that sound like quantum theory or what?

So what are we then? Brains in vats? Or creators of brains in vats? Or one in a recursive chain of brains in vats?

Comments

  1. Ramiah KumarMarch 20, 2017 at 11:20 AM

    Ah, this is good. We are discussing philosophy, not really science. That is entertaining because science is no longer a domain for the common man; the specialists rule and they speak a language that only they understand (hopefully).

    As the contents, I don't know what to say; so I won't comment. I suppose your blog too concludes in that vein only.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Student of the Year

Image
As a toddler, my daughter loved Alia Bhatt’s songs, esp. the ones from Student of the Year . (That movie did have many good songs and well-choreographed dances). Fast forward to present day, when she is 12 yo. She rarely watches Hindi movies now, but one of the few ones she likes of late, Raja aur Rani ki Prem Kahani has, yes, Alia Bhatt.   If I had any hopes that there was anything to be read in the name of her toddler-time favorite ( Student of the Year ), they have been dashed. Our conversations come exam time are perfectly captured by this photo and its caption: In fact, the pic below captures how she and I look at her answer sheets – me intently, she with an expression of “It’s over, so why are you even looking at it?”   Of late, we pull her leg and tell her that she isn’t showing any signs of academic prowess, she’d better find a rich guy to marry. Some time later, she showed us this meme on the Internet: “Me No Study, Me No Care Me Go Marry Millionaire If He Die
Read more

Why we Deceive Ourselves

In their book, The Elephant in the Brain , the authors describe this weird aspect of deception that we practice: deceiving ourselves! That is so weird: “If our minds contain maps of our worlds, what good comes from having an inaccurate version of these maps?” The Sigmund Freud school of thought treats self-deception as a defense mechanism, “a way for the ego to protect itself”. The mind seeks to protect itself from anxiety and other negative emotions. Many object to this reasoning: since accurate information is so critical to our survival, surely distorting information would be dangerous. Wouldn’t the goal of protecting our self-esteem have been better achieved by making the brain’s self-esteem mechanism stronger instead? The new school of thought explains self-deception as “primarily outward-facing, manipulative, and ultimately self-serving”. This is based on Thomas Schelling’s work on game theory: “In a variety of scenarios, limiting or sabotaging yourself is the winn
Read more

Handling of the Satyam Scam

The Satyam scam. How does that fit into Montek Singh Ahluwalia’s book on reforms in India, Backstage ? The reason is that, as both NASSCOM and the government of India felt: “(Satyam’s) collapse would create a great deal of disruption for clients worldwide and seriously damage India’s reputation as a reliable source of software services.”   Therefore, the government decided to work with the private sector to “organize a quick takeover by a reputable new buyer, who would quickly restart the company”. But that could not be done overnight. In the meantime, the new board would have to reach out to Satyam’s clients and “reassure them that the company would survive”.   For the new board to have credibility when it made that statement, it had to be staffed with people who understood the private sector, the IT sector in particular, and commanded respect and trust. Deepak Parikh from HDFC was made chairman, and other members of the board included a former NASSCOM chairman, CII member,
Read more