Not wishing to build a castle floating in the air without any foundation, it will first be necessary to lay a solid foundation for this new theory. We can build that foundation by probing one of the most neglected and overlooked questions relating to nature. The question is: what, if any, are the computation requirements of nature? By this I mean: is it necessary that nature does some type of computation? If so, how much computation does nature need to do, and what elements of computation would nature need to satisfy such requirements?
The CRON Problem
Let's create an acronym to describe this problem. Let's call the problem the CRON problem. CRON stands for Computation Requirements of the Operations of Nature. We can define it like this:
--------------------------------------------------------
CRON Problem: Are there computation requirements in nature's operations -- things such as math that needs to be done, algorithms that need to be followed, or information that needs to be stored, retrieved or transferred? If so, roughly what is the level of computation that nature needs to do, and what elements of computation do we need to postulate to satisfy the computation requirements of nature?
--------------------------------------------------------
In the definition
above (and throughout this post) I use computation very broadly to
mean any phenomenon such as any operation involving calculation, the
execution of rules or instructions, or the manipulation or transfer
of information (as well as other additional actions that may be or
seem to be goal-oriented, rule-based, or algorithmic, or which seem
to methodically derive particular outputs from particular inputs, or
which seem to involve the use or storage of data). According to this
broad definition, your computer is doing computation when it is
calculating some number, and it is also doing computation when you
are doing a Google search or downloading a film.
The Biological Answer: There Definitely Are Computation Requirements, Which We Largely Understand
Let us first examine this CRON problem as it relates to biology. Imagine if you raised this CRON question to a biologist around 1930, asking him: are there computation requirements that nature must meet in order to perform the operations of biology?
I can easily imagine the answer the biologist might have given: “Don't be ridiculous. Computation is something done on pencil or paper, or by big bulky calculation machines. None of that goes on in the operations of biology.”
But we now know that this answer is false. Biology does require a large degree of computation, in the sense of information storage and information transfer. The main information storage medium is DNA. DNA uses a genetic code, which is a kind of tiny programming language. Every time a new organism is conceived and born, there's a transfer of information comparable to a huge data dump done by the IT division of a corporation. A gene is quite a bit like the complex variable known as a class in object-oriented languages, and each time a gene is used by an organism to create a protein, it is like the data processing operation known as instantiation.
This is a quite interesting example, because it shows a case of two things:
- There was actually a huge computation requirement associated
with a particular branch of nature (biology).
- This computation requirement was overlooked and ignored by
scientists in the field, who basically just failed to consider what
the computation requirements were in the processes they were
studying.
Does Nature Need to Compute to Handle Relativistic Particle Collisions?
First let's look at a case that may
seem quite simple at first: the case of two high-speed highly
energetic protons colliding together, at a speed that is a good
fraction of the speed of light (such a collision is called a
relativistic collision). This is the kind of thing that happened very
frequently in the early universe shortly after the Big Bang. It can
also happen in a huge particle accelerator such as the Large Hadron
Collider, where protons are collided together at very high speeds.
You might think that what happens in
such a case is that the particles simply bounce off each other, as
would happen if two fastball pitchers pitched fastballs at each
other, and the balls collided. But if the two protons collide at a
very high speed, a good fraction of the speed of light, something
very different happens. The two protons are converted to other
particles, perhaps many different particles. An example of this is
shown below.
Now in regard to computation
requirements, one might think at first that such a collision does not
require any computation, since the end result is just a completely
random mess. But actually nature follows an exact set of rules
whenever such collisions occur.
- The equation e = mc2
is followed to compute the available mass-energy that can be used to
create the output particles. (The actual “available energy” equation,
involving a square root, is a little more complicated, but it is
based on the e = mc2
equation.)
- Rules are followed in regard to the mass of the created particles. The created particles are always one of less than about 200 types (most short-lived), and each type of particle has some particular mass and some particular charge. It is as if nature has only a short list of allowed particles (each with a particular mass and charge), and nature only creates particles using that list, rather than just allowing particles of any old mass to be created (rather like a mother who only makes cookies by using a small set of cookie cutters). For example, we may see the creation of a particle with the mass of the electron, but never see a particle created with two or three or four times the mass of the electron. The stable particles that result from the collision (not counting antiparticles) are always either protons, neutrons, electrons, or neutrinos (or nuclei made from protons and neutrons).
- The collision follows a law called the law of the conservation of charge, which means that the total ratio of positive electric charge to negative electric charge is always precisely the same before and after the collision. This means, for example, that it is forbidden for you to have a collision of two protons (with a total of two positive electric charges) resulting in the creation of any set of particles that don't have a net total of two positive electric charges.
- The collision follows a law called the law of the conservation of baryon number, which means that the total baryon number of the incoming particles is the same as the total baryon number of the particles that result from the collision.
- The collision follows a law called the law of the conservation of lepton number, which puts further restrictions on the set of output particles that can appear as the result of the collision. This law is actually three laws in one, each relating to a particular type of lepton.
It
seems that a nontrivial amount of computation is required for all of
this to occur. If you doubt this, consider what would need to be done
if you were a computer programmer trying to write a program that
would simulate the results nature produces when two high-speed
relativistic protons collide at a large fraction of the speed of
light. You would need for your program to have some kind of list of
the allowed particles that could appear as output particles, a list
of less than about 200 possibilities, that would include the proton,
the electron, the neutron, mesons, the muon, a few other particles,
and their antiparticles (along with the masses and charges of each).
Your program would have to compute the available energy for output
particles, using an equation that would make use of a constant you
had declared in your program representing the speed of light. Your
program would also have to include some elaborate computation
designed to calculate a set of output particles (derived using the
list of particles) that satisfy the available energy limits and also
the requirements of the law of the conservation of baryon number,
the law of the conservation of charge, and the law of the
conservation of lepton number. This would require quite a bit of
programming to accomplish. It would probably take the average skilled
programmer several days of programming to produce the required code
to compute such a thing. It could easily take the programmer weeks to
produce code that would perform these computations more or less
instantaneously, without using a loop that uses a trial-and-error
iteration.
So
we seem to have come to a very interesting result here. It would seem
that significant computation is indeed required by nature to handle
events such as relativistic proton collisions.
One
can imagine a simpler universe in which high-speed protons always
simply bounce off each other when they collide, like two baseballs
which collide after being pitched by two fastball pitchers aiming at
each other. That simple behavior might not require any computation by
nature, but the very different type of behavior that happens in our
universe when relativistic protons collide (involving a whole series
of complicated rules that must be rigidly followed) does seem to
require computation.
The
creation of particles that occurs in a relativistic particle
collision is actually strikingly similar to the instantiation of
objects (using a class) that occurs in object-oriented software
programming. Explaining this point would take several paragraphs, and
I don't want this lengthy post to get too long; so I will leave this
explanation for a separate future blog post on this topic.
The preceding case may disturb someone
who doesn't want to believe that nature needs to compute. But such a
person may at least comfort himself by thinking: that's just a freak
case; nowadays those relativistic particle collisions only occur in a
few particle accelerators.
But now let us look at more general
operations of nature, those involving the four fundamental forces of
nature. Let us ask the question: does nature need to do computation
in order to handle the fundamental forces that allow us and our
planet to exist from day to day?
The four fundamental forces in nature
are the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, the
electromagnetic force, and the gravitational force.
The strong nuclear force is the
glue-like force that holds together the protons and neutrons in the
nucleus of an atom. The range of this force is extremely small, so we
don't seem to have a very obvious case here that a large amount of
computation needs to be done for the force to work (although once we
got into all the very complex calculations needed to compute the
strong nuclear force, we might think differently).
The weak nuclear force is the
fundamental force driving radioactivity. An interesting aspect of
radioactivity is its random nature. It would seem that if you were to
write a computer program simulating the behavior of radioactive
particles, you would need to make use of a piece of software
functionality called a random number generator. So it could be that
nature does need to do some type of computation for the weak nuclear
force to occur, but this is not at all the most compelling case where
natural operations seem to require programming.
When we come to the gravitational
force, we have a very different situation. It seems that for nature
to handle gravitation as we understand it, insanely high amounts of
computation are required.
This may seem surprising to someone
familiar with the famous formula for gravitation, which is quite a
simple formula. The formula is shown below:
In this formula, F is the
gravitational force, G is the gravitational constant, m1 is the first
mass, m2 is the second mass, and d is the distance between the
masses.
Now looking at this formula, you may
think: it looks like nature has to do a little calculation to
compute gravity, but it's not much, so we can just ignore it.
To actually fully compute the
gravitational forces acting on any one object or particle in the
universe, we must do an almost infinitely more expensive
calculation-- a calculation that must involve the mass of all other
objects in the universe. This is because gravitation is an inverse
square law with an infinite range. Every single massive object in
the universe is exerting a gravitational force on you, and every
other massive object.
I may note the very interesting fact
that not one physicist in the history of science has ever done one
billionth of the work needed to completely compute the complete
gravitational forces attacking on any single particle or object.
To illustrate the computation
requirement to calculate the gravitational forces acting on a single
object, I can write a little function in the C# programming
language:
void
ComputeGravitationalForcesOnParticle (particle oParticleX)
{
foreach (particle oParticleY in
Universe)
{
double dForce =
0.0;
double
dTemp = 0.0;
dTemp = (oParticleX.Mass *
oParticleY.Mass) /
ComputeDistanceBetweenParticles(oParticleX,
oParticleY);
dForce = GravitationalConstant * dTemp;
ApplyForce(dForce,
oParticleX);
}
}
Now that's quite a bit of computation
required. But for nature to do all the work needed to compute the
gravitational forces on all particles in the universe during
any given instant, it needs to do vastly more work than to just do
the equivalent of running this function that is so expensive from a
computational standpoint. Nature has to do the equivalent of a double
loop, in which this loop is just the inner loop. To represent this in
the C# language, we would need code something like this:
foreach
(particle oParticleX in Universe)
{
foreach (particle oParticleY in Universe)
{
double dForce = 0.0;
double
dTemp = 0.0;
dTemp
= (oParticleX.Mass * oParticleY.Mass) /
ComputeDistanceBetweenParticles(oParticleX,
oParticleY);
dForce
= GravitationalConstant * dTemp;
ApplyForce(dForce, oParticleX);
}
}
In any case in which you are
calculating, say, once every second rather than a tiny fraction of a
second, the calculation would have to be much more complicated, as
it would have to take into account the relative motion between objects.
This makes it pretty clear that nature
does indeed need to compute in order for gravitation to occur. It
would seem that the computational requirements of gravitation are
insanely high.
Does Nature Need to Compute to Handle the Electromagnetic Force?
The electromagnetic force is the force
of attraction and repulsion between charged particles such as protons
and neutrons. Like gravitation, the electromagnetic force is an
inverse square law with infinite range. The basic formula for the
electromagnetic force is Coulomb's law, which looks very similar to
the basic formula for gravitation, except that it uses charges rather
than masses, and a different constant. The formula is shown below:
In this formula F is the
electromagnetic force of attraction or repulsion, k is a constant, qa
is the first charge, qb
is the second charge, and r is the distance between them.
The computational situation in regard
to the electromagnetic force is very similar to the computational
situation in regard to gravitation. Just as the formula for
gravitation gives you only the tiniest fraction of the story (because
it gives you a formula for calculating only the gravitational
attraction between two different particles), Coulomb's law gives you
only the tiniest fraction of the story (because it only gives you a
formula for calculating the electromagnetic force between two
particles). Since the range of electromagnetism is infinite, to fully
compute the electromagnetic forces on any one particle or object requires that
you take into account all other charged particles in the universe.
If you were to write some C# programming code that gives the needed
calculations to compute the electromagnetic forces acting on all
particles in the universe, it would have to have an insanely
expensive nested loop like the one previously described for
gravitation. The code would be something like this:
for
each (particle oParticleX in Universe)
{
foreach
(particle oParticleY in Universe)
{
double dForce = 0.0;
double
dTemp = 0.0;
dTemp
= (oParticleX.Charge * oParticleY.Charge) /
ComputeDistanceBetweenParticles(oParticleX,
oParticleY);
dForce
= CouplingConstant * dTemp;
ApplyForce(dForce,
oParticleX, eForceType);
}
}
In this case the outer part of the loop must be traversed about 1080 times, which is ten thousand billion trillion quadrillion quintillion sextillion iterations. But each such iteration requires running the inner part of the loop, which also must be run 1080 times. So the total number of iterations that must be run is 10160 which is a ten thousand billion trillion quadrillion quintillion sextillion times greater than the total number of particles in the universe.
It seems, then, that nature's
computational demands required by the electromagnetic force are
incredibly high.
I may note that there is a
long-standing tradition of representing the charge of the electron as
negative, and the charge of the proton as positive. But because the
total number of attractions involving electrons is apparently equal
to the total number of repulsions involving electrons, as far we can
see (something that is also true for protons), there is no physical
basis for this convention. When we get rid of this “cheat” that
arose for the sake of mathematical convenience, we see that nature
seems to have an algorithmic rule-based logic that it uses in
electromagnetism, reminiscent of “if/then” logic in a computer
program; and this logic differentiates between protons, neutrons and
electrons. I will explain this point more fully in a future blog
post.
According to quantum mechanics, every
particle has what is called a wave function. The wave function
determines the likelihood of the particle existing at a particular
location. You can get a crude, rough analogy of the wave function if
you imagine a programming function that takes a few inputs, and then
produces as an output a scatter plot showing a region of space, with
little dots, each representing the chance of the particle being in a
particular place. The more dots there are in a particular region of
space, the higher the likelihood of the particle existing in that
region. (The wave function is actually a lot more complicated that
this, but such an analogy will serve as a rough sketch.)
But in order to do the full complete
calculation of the wave function, this “scatter plot” must be
basically the size of the universe. According to quantum mechanics,
the wave function is actually “spread out” across the entire
universe. This means that while the wave function is computing a very
high likelihood that a particular electron now exists at a location
close to where it was an instant ago, the wave function is also
computing a very small, infinitesimal likelihood that the same
electron may next be somewhere else in the universe, perhaps far, far
away. Since the Pauli Exclusion Principle says two particles can't
exist in the exact same spot with the same characteristics, this wave
function calculation therefore must apparently take into
consideration all the other particles in the universe.
Here is a quote from Cal Tech
physicist Sean Carroll:
In quantum mechanics, the wave
function for a particle will generically be spread out all over the
universe, not confined to a small region. In practice, the
overwhelming majority of the wave function might be localized to one
particular place, but in principle there’s a very tiny bit of it at
almost every point in space. (At some points it might be precisely
zero, but those will be relatively rare.) Consequently, when I change
the electric field anywhere in the universe, in principle the wave
function of every electron changes just a little bit.
Again, we have a case where the
computation requirements of nature seem to be insanely high. Every
second nature seems to be computing the wave function of every
particle in the universe, and the complete, full computation of that
wave function requires an incredibly burdensome calculation that has
to take all other particles in the universe into consideration.
I may also note that the very concept
of the wave function – a function that takes inputs, and produces
an output-- is extremely redolent of software and computation.
Computer programs are built from functions that take inputs and
produce outputs.
The case of empty space between the
middle of stars may seem at first a case that requires absolutely
zero computation by nature. After all, empty space between stars is
just completely simple nothingness, right? Not quite. Quantum
mechanics says that there is a vacuum energy density, and that the
empty space between stars is a complex sea of virtual particles that
last only for a fraction of a second, popping in and out of
existence.
The mathematics required to compute
this vacuum energy density is extremely complicated. Strangely
enough, when physicists tried to calculate the vacuum energy density,
they found at first that it seems to require an infinite
amount of calculation to compute the energy density of the vacuum. So
they resorted to a kind of trick or cheat called renormalization,
which let them reduce the needed computation to a finite amount
(Richard Feynman, the pioneer of renormalization, once admitted that
it is “hocus pocus.”)
Even after this cheat, the required
calculation is still ridiculously laborious, as it requires
calculating contributions from many different particles, fields, and
forces. The calculation required to compute the energy density of one
cubic centimeter is very complicated and computationally expensive.
Then that amount must be multiplied by more than a billion trillion
quadrillion if we are to estimate nature's total computation
requirements for calculating the vacuum energy density of all of the
cubic centimeters in all of the empty spaces of our vast universe. So
again we find a case where the computation requirements of nature
seem to be very, very high.
A quantum jump is one of the strangest
things in quantum mechanics. A quantum jump occurs when an electron
jumps from one orbit in an atom to another (or more strictly, from
one quantum state to another). A quantum jump is typically triggered
when an energetic photon strikes the electron. The following very
crude diagram illustrates the idea. It shows an electron being struck
by a photon of energy, with the electron jumping to a new orbital
position. (I am speaking a bit schematically here.)
A quantum jump
However, the
actual jump does not occur as a journey from one orbit to another, as
shown in this crude visual The jump occurs as an instantaneous
transition from one orbit to another (or more precisely, from one
quantum state to another). The opposite of the process depicted
above also frequently happens. An electron will jump to an orbit
closer to the nucleus, causing a photon to be emitted.
Now, in physics
there is a very important law saying that in an atom no two electrons
can have the same quantum state. This law is known as the Pauli
Exclusion Principle. What this roughly means is that no two electrons
with the same spin can have the same orbital state.
Imagine an atom with many electrons
having many different orbits. In such a case a photon may strike an
electron, causing it to jump to a new orbital position. But if the
atom already has many electrons, the jump must occur in a way that
obeys the Pauli Exclusion Principle. Depending on the intensity of
the photon, the electron might have to jump over numerous different
orbits, finding a slot for it to jump to that is compatible with the
Pauli Exclusion Principle.
A complex atom
For example, a photon might hit an
electron in one of the inner orbits in an atom like the one depicted
above, causing it to jump to one of the outer orbits (the distance
would depend on how energetic the photon was).
But in this case the electron does not
“try” various orbital positions, ending up in the first one that
is compatible with the Pauli Exclusion Principle. Instead the
electron instantaneously jumps to the first available orbital
position (consistent with the photon energy) that satisfies the Pauli
Exclusion Principle.
Now the question is: how does the
electron know exactly the right position to instantaneously jump to
in this kind of complicated situation? This is basically the same
question that was asked by Rutherford, one of the great atomic
physicists.
This seems to be a case where nature
has to do computation, both to recall and apply the complicated law
of the Pauli Exclusion Principle, and also to compute the correct
position (consistent with the Pauli Exclusion Principle) for the
electron to relocate. The whole operation seems rule-based and
programmatic, and the quantum jumps resemble the “variable
assignment” operations that occur within programming code (in which
a variable instantaneously has its value changed).
Upon looking for further cases where
nature seems to be performing like software, we might look at the
famous double-slit experiment (in which electrons behave in a way
that may suggest they are being influenced by some mysterious
semi-cognizant rule). But let us instead look at an even more
dramatic example: the phenomenon of quantum entanglement.
An example of quantum entanglement is
shown in the illustration here. Particle C is a particle that decays
into two daughter particles, A and B. Until someone measures the spin
on either of these two particles, the spin of each of the daughter
particles is indeterminate, which in quantum mechanics is a kind of
fuzzy “not assigned yet” state (it might also be conceived as a
combination of both possible spin states of Up and Down). It's
rather like the same idea that one sees in a probability cloud
diagram of an atom, showing an electron orbital, where rather than
saying that the electron has an exact position we say that the
electron's position is “spread out” throughout the probability
cloud. Now, as soon as we measure the spin of either particle A or
particle B, the spin becomes actualized or determined (one might may
assigned, speaking as a programmer), and the other daughter
particle then has its previously indeterminate spin become
actualized, to a value that is the opposite of the spin value of the
first particle. This effect has been found to not be limited by the speed
of light, and seems to occur instantaneously.
Example of Quantum Entanglement
Does this effect seem to require
computation? Indeed, it does. The phenomenon of quantum entanglement
seems to require that nature has some database or data engine that
links together each pair of entangled particles, so that nature can
keep track of what particle or particles are associated with any
particular entangled particle (rather in the same way that external
databases keep track of which persons are your siblings or
co-workers). Since physicists believe that quantum entanglement is
not some rare phenomenon, but is instead occurring to a huge extent
all over the universe, the total amount of computation that must be
done seems to be immense.
This type of quantum entanglement
effect bears no resemblance to anything we see in the macroscopic
world, but something like this effect can be easily set up within a
relational database. Using the SQL language I can easily set up a
database in which particular objects can be inversely correlated.
The database might be created with SQL statements something like
this:
create
table Particles
begin
ID1
int,
spin
int,
mass
decimal,
particle_type
char(10)
end
go
create
table Correlated_Particles
begin
ID1
int,
ID2
int
end
go
Now given such an arrangement of data,
I could establish the inverse correlation by simply writing what is
called an update trigger on the Particles table, which is a piece of
code that is run whenever an item in that table is updated. This
update trigger could have a few lines of code that checks whether a
row in the Particles table has a match in the Correlated_Particles
table. If such a match is found, another row in the Particles table
is updated to achieve the inverse correlation. The code would look
something like this:
CREATE
TRIGGER Inverse_Correlation
ON
Particles
AFTER
UPDATE
AS
declare
@ID int
IF
( UPDATE (spin) )
BEGIN
select
@ID = ID2 from Correlated_Particles where
ID1
= updated.ID1
if
(@ID is not null)
update
Particles set spin = updated.spin * -1 where ID1 = @ID
END
GO
So we can achieve this strange
effect of instantaneous inverse correlation, similar to quantum entanglement;
but we need a database and we need some software, the code in the
update trigger. To account for quantum entanglement in nature, we
apparently need to postulate that nature has something like a data engine and
some kind of software.
Upon hearing these arguments, many
will take a position along these lines: “Well, I guess nature does
seem to be doing a great deal of computation, or something like
computation. But we should not then conclude that the universe has
any software, or any computing engine, or any data engine.” Such
thinking kind of defies the observational principle that virtually
all computation seems to require some kind of software, computation
engine, and data engine (as suggested by the graphic below, which
compares common elements of two very different types of computation,
a paper and pencil math calculation and an online Amazon order).
Elements Required for Complex Computation
I will give a name for the type of
thinking described in the previous paragraph. I will call it the
Magical Infinite Free Computation Assumption, or MIFCA. I call the
assumption “magical” because all known computation involves some
kind of software (or something like software) or some kind of
computation engine or some type of data engine. To imagine that the
universe is doing all this nearly infinite amount of computation
every second without any software and without any computing engine
and without any data engine is to magically imagine that nature is
getting “for free” something that normally has a requirements
cost (a cost in terms of the necessity of having a certain amount of
software, a required computation engine, and a required data engine).
We can compare this type of MIFCA
thinking to the thinking of a small child in regard to his parents'
spending. A very young child may see his wealthy parents spending
heavily all the time, and may generalize a rule that “My parents
can buy whatever they want.” But such behavior actually has
implications – it implies that perhaps one or both of the parents
get a regular paycheck that gives them money, or that the parents
have a bank account that stores their savings. But the small child
never thinks about such implications – he just simply thinks, “My
parents can buy whatever they want.” Similarly, the modern
scientist may think that nature can do unlimited computation, but he
fails to deduce the implications that follow: the fact that such
computation implies the existence of an associated software and
computation engine and data engine.
Although this type of MIFCA assumption
may be extremely common, it does not make sense. To imagine that the
universe does a nearly infinite amount of rule-based computation
every second but without any software and without any computation
engine and without any data engine is rather like imagining that
somewhere there is a baseball game being continuously played but
without any playing field and without any baseball and without any
bases and without any baseball players.
These examples (and many others I
could give) suggest that nature does require a high degree of
computation for the phenomena studied by physicists. We are led
then, dramatically, to a new paradigm. In this paradigm we must
assume that software is a fundamental aspect of the universe, and
that in all probability the universe has some type of extremely
elaborate programming, computing engine and data engine that is
mostly unknown to us. (By using the term “engine” I simply some
type of system, not necessarily a material one.)
I will call this theory the theory of
a programmed material universe. I choose this name to
distinguish such a theory from other theories which claim that the
universe is just a Matrix-style illusion or that the universe is a
simulation (perhaps one produced by alien programmers). I reject such
theories, and argued against them in my blog post Why You Are Not Living in a Computer Simulation. The theory of a programmed
material universe assumes that our universe is as real as we have
always thought, but that a significant element of it is a computation
layer that includes software. (I may note that the word “material”
in the phrase “programmed material universe” is merely intended
to mean “as real as anything else,” and does not necessarily
imply any assumption about the nature of physical matter.)
The fact that we do not understand the
details of such a cosmic computation layer should not at all stop us
from assuming that it exists. Scientists assume that dark matter
exists, but purely because they think it is needed to explain other
things, not because there is any unambiguous direct observational
evidence for dark matter. If there are sound reasons for assuming the
universe must have software and a computation engine and a data
engine, then we should assume that it does, regardless of whether we
know the details of such things.
An assumption that software is a key
part of the universe also does not force us to believe in the weighty
assumption that the universe is self-conscious. The software we are
familiar with has a certain degree of intelligence or smarts, but it
is not self-conscious. I can write a program in two hours that has
some small degree of intelligence or smarts, but the program is no
more self-conscious than a rock. So we can believe that the universe
has a certain degree of intelligence or smarts in its software,
without having to believe that the universe is self-conscious.
An assumption that software is a key
part of the universe also does not force us to the simplistic
conclusion that “the universe is a computer.” A more appropriate
statement would be along these lines: the universe, like a Boeing
747, is a complicated system going towards a destination; and in both
cases software and computation are key parts of the overall system.
It would be inaccurate to say that a Boeing 747 is a computer, but it
would be correct to say that software and a computing system are
crucial parts of a Boeing 747 (used for navigation and whenever the
plane flies on autopilot). Similarly we can say that software and
computation are crucial parts of the universe (but we should not say
“the universe is a computer.”)
One way to visualize this theory of a
programmed material universe is to imagine the universe consisting of
at least two layers – a mass energy layer and a computation layer,
as schematically depicted below. We should suppose the computation
layer is vastly more complicated than the simple flowchart shown in
this visual. We should also suppose that the two layers are intertwined, rather than one layer floating above the other layer. If you ask "Which layer am I living in?" the answer is: both.
One Way to Visualize the Theory
The argument presented here (involving
the computational requirements of nature) is only half of the case
for the theory of a programmed material universe. The other half of
the case (which I will explain in my next blog post) is the
explanatory need for such a theory in giving a plausible narrative of
the improbable events in the history of the universe. The universe
has undergone an astounding evolution from a singularity of infinite
density at the time of the Big Bang, achieving improbable and
fortunate milestones such as the origin of galaxies, the formation of
planets with heavy elements, the origin of life, and the origin of
self-conscious Mind. Such an amazing progression is very hard to
credibly explain outside of a theory of a programmed material
universe, but such a progression is exactly what we would expect if
such a theory is true (partially because software can be goal-oriented and goal seeking). Read my next blog post for a full explanation
of this point.
No comments:
Post a Comment