Friday, November 26, 2004
There is probably a God.
I know, it's a freaking strange thing for me to say on my blog, and it is only somewhat true. But, in keeping with the fascinating topics which seem to have become a mainstay of this blog, once I discovered this site, it became necessary to at least post with the above subject line in describing it. I'll give a slightly more in-depth explanation in a sec, or you could go there and read it directly - an easily-digestible summary can be found here.
It's called the Simulation Argument, put forth by an Oxford philosophy postdoc named Nick Bostrom.
He argues (I'll paraphrase and shift the emphasis a bit, here) that it is logically inconsistent to hold all four of the following to be simultaneously true:
The second point is again impossible to prove or disprove; for instance, it may be that (as is speculated by the protagonists, briefly, in David Brin's Earth) there exists a deadly science whose discovery almost invariably leads to that species' extinction. Bostrom puts it well: "Let us hope that this is not the case."
Fasehood on the third point is (IMO) bloody unlikely, though it could be argued. Perhaps the changing values which accompany such science tend strongly to prohibit this behaviour, whether it be for reasons of recreation, research, art, or anything else. Perhaps widespread xoxing can lead only to destruction of the species per the previous item, or else to a particular regard for the quality of uniqueness which would make setting up a world-simulation inconceivable. But it seems improbable to me that one would hold this to be true in preference to the others, unless given some good reason to do so.
The fourth point follows from some mathematics in the full version of the paper, which I have not yet vetted for myself but which I am willing to trust the editors of Philosophical Quarterly to have done for me. But in essence, the point is that the universe has a known-finite mass, and a known-finite capacity therefore for real bodies; the Matrix, or its thematic descendants, has either an infinite capacity, or at least an incredibly higher capacity, for minds. Subdivide that by more than an infinitesimal number of species which reach technological maturity, and by the number of simulations they choose to run, and the odds of you being a real person are still much lower than the odds of Elvis still being alive today.
Freaky.
This last, of course, implies that - again - the universe was probably designed... not brought into being by random chance. There is probably a God. Sure, it may be the inconceivably-far-off equivalent of a postdoc or a bored eight-year-old. But nonetheless, it is unreasonable to assume that you're living in the miniscule probability that is the actual, original, material world, brought about (if you like) by chance.
Bostrom then makes some really, really neat points about what this means. It does not mean that you're ever likely to see through the veil of it; this is simply weak thinking, and in fact I would find it a stretch that one could ever bring about proper sentience in a simulation, if it was so shoddy that your senses could then find a loophole. Nope, not gonna happen, not unless the designer built in (or steps in to provide) deliberate evidence to this effect.
But it does mean that you can try to guess at the mind of God. This may be nearly as inconceivable; we don't yet know how much technology it may take, to achieve this effect, to construct the base technologies (robust nanotech?) which would enable the proper computational tools. But one of the alternatives, certainly, is that the Matrix isn't all that far away - that we will reach such tech capabilities, before altering our minds and values systems into total unrecognizability. (Or that another species, if you prefer, would be likely to still show some similar values to our own - the Golden Rule, maybe - even upon reaching such a point.)
So to whatever extent you think you can predict the mind of the designer... you can try to predict the Why and How of their creation. If you do not think that such a mind exists... then either you should go buy a lottery ticket and quit your day job in anticipation of a sure win, or you should decide which of #2 or #3 above you think is false.
Yai-i. This may take me a while to absorb...
It's called the Simulation Argument, put forth by an Oxford philosophy postdoc named Nick Bostrom.
He argues (I'll paraphrase and shift the emphasis a bit, here) that it is logically inconsistent to hold all four of the following to be simultaneously true:
- It is possible, given enough computational power, to render in simulation a human mind, body, and a world for that person to live in.
- A species at our level of maturity has a hope in hell of ever surviving to become technologically mature.
- Among technologically mature civilizations - or even individuals in such civilizations - capable of running such a simulation, more than a vanishingly small percentage will actually choose to do so.
- There is probably a spoon. More specifically, you assert that the odds that you are a "real" person, and not a simulation, are better than your odds of winning the lottery without a ticket.
The second point is again impossible to prove or disprove; for instance, it may be that (as is speculated by the protagonists, briefly, in David Brin's Earth) there exists a deadly science whose discovery almost invariably leads to that species' extinction. Bostrom puts it well: "Let us hope that this is not the case."
Fasehood on the third point is (IMO) bloody unlikely, though it could be argued. Perhaps the changing values which accompany such science tend strongly to prohibit this behaviour, whether it be for reasons of recreation, research, art, or anything else. Perhaps widespread xoxing can lead only to destruction of the species per the previous item, or else to a particular regard for the quality of uniqueness which would make setting up a world-simulation inconceivable. But it seems improbable to me that one would hold this to be true in preference to the others, unless given some good reason to do so.
The fourth point follows from some mathematics in the full version of the paper, which I have not yet vetted for myself but which I am willing to trust the editors of Philosophical Quarterly to have done for me. But in essence, the point is that the universe has a known-finite mass, and a known-finite capacity therefore for real bodies; the Matrix, or its thematic descendants, has either an infinite capacity, or at least an incredibly higher capacity, for minds. Subdivide that by more than an infinitesimal number of species which reach technological maturity, and by the number of simulations they choose to run, and the odds of you being a real person are still much lower than the odds of Elvis still being alive today.
Freaky.
This last, of course, implies that - again - the universe was probably designed... not brought into being by random chance. There is probably a God. Sure, it may be the inconceivably-far-off equivalent of a postdoc or a bored eight-year-old. But nonetheless, it is unreasonable to assume that you're living in the miniscule probability that is the actual, original, material world, brought about (if you like) by chance.
Bostrom then makes some really, really neat points about what this means. It does not mean that you're ever likely to see through the veil of it; this is simply weak thinking, and in fact I would find it a stretch that one could ever bring about proper sentience in a simulation, if it was so shoddy that your senses could then find a loophole. Nope, not gonna happen, not unless the designer built in (or steps in to provide) deliberate evidence to this effect.
But it does mean that you can try to guess at the mind of God. This may be nearly as inconceivable; we don't yet know how much technology it may take, to achieve this effect, to construct the base technologies (robust nanotech?) which would enable the proper computational tools. But one of the alternatives, certainly, is that the Matrix isn't all that far away - that we will reach such tech capabilities, before altering our minds and values systems into total unrecognizability. (Or that another species, if you prefer, would be likely to still show some similar values to our own - the Golden Rule, maybe - even upon reaching such a point.)
So to whatever extent you think you can predict the mind of the designer... you can try to predict the Why and How of their creation. If you do not think that such a mind exists... then either you should go buy a lottery ticket and quit your day job in anticipation of a sure win, or you should decide which of #2 or #3 above you think is false.
Yai-i. This may take me a while to absorb...
<< Home