Not All Bad Science Is Created Equal (Simulated Universes Content)

Maybe you’re already familiar with the suggestion by a small pocket of scientists that the universe might be just a big computer simulation. Hopefully, this is the case, and if not, our Vice big sister did an interview recently with one of the theory’s more recent proponents, NASA scientist Rich Terrile.

If your clicking finger is busted, just understand that if it is in fact possible to replicate consciousness (or the experience of consciousness) on a computer chip — maybe, maybe not — and if a civilization can evolve to the point that it can develop the technology to do that — maybe, maybe not — than the odds of us living in a simulated universe go through the roof. Creators creating creators, etc. Forever, or at least until the power runs out somewhere.

Think about it: it costs nothing in terms of energy to run a computer simulation compared to growing intelligent life from the Big Bang. So, if the above conditions are true (consciousness can be replicated, a civilization can evolve to the point that it can create the simulation [both are dubious, esp. the latter]), then there’s probably a lot more fake universes than real ones by many, many orders of magnitude. It’s a clever conceit: the universe is more likely to make advanced life in the way that utilizes the least effort, which would be creating a “god” civilization the natural 13.75 billion years way, and letting that civilization (and the god civilizations it chooses to create) conjure up the rest. Which would, in a short amount of time, be inconceivably vast to the point that everything is happening all the time, including you-times-infinity.

Vice did a rebuttal interview of sorts yesterday with philosopher Massimo Pigliucci, author of Answers for Aristotle and professor of philosophy at the City University of New York. He says at least a couple of neat things and one I don’t agree with. First, Pigliucci doesn’t completely crush on the science of simulated universes, which is refreshing at least because simulated universes is a theory treading heavily in (historically) philosophical territory:

That makes me feel like claims such as Terrile’s are pseudoscientific, and that those dreaming of simulations cannot deal with the fact that they will die someday, which is why they dream of AI and simulations.

I wouldn't use the word pseudoscientific too lightly. Terrile, for instance, is a legitimate scientist doing legitimate science. When he doesn't talk about pixellated reality, that is. That's different from, say, Deepak Chopra and his nonsense about "quantum healing." That said, academics—be they scientists or philosophers—have a special responsibility when they talk to the public and should make clear where the science or philosophy ends and personal speculation begins.

But yes, I suspect that a lot of what we are talking about does have to do with the human inability to deal with death.

I like that, but I’m a bit skeptical of the idea that we think about these things out of fear of death. I don’t actually think it has much to do with death at all. Death seems about the same thing in a simulated universe as it does in a “real” universe (unless you’re imagining this as a ticket to immortality, which is stupid). In a New Scientist interview last year, Brian Greene shared some brief thoughts on simulated universes, dismissing the idea not so much because it’s unlikely (which he doesn’t touch), but because it just doesn’t matter one way or another.

Would it matter? In a way it wouldn't. If I have been simulated for all the years I've been on this Earth, it's been a fun ride. If The Simulator is listening to me right now: keep it going! You know, it's been good. And the fact that we can use our minds, even if they are simulated minds, to apparently gain insight into the world, even if it's simulated insight, is exciting.

So, I guess there’s two main things I don’t agree with from Pigliucci. The other is this: "… it is entirely empirically untestable—i.e., it's not science … " Which is not entirely correct because we can test it be doing it. If we can create a simulated universe — imagining that we could ever come up with some benchmark for success — then, well, we’ve run a pretty impressive test on the theory. And, in the process, probably learned a lot more about how said theory can be proved or debunked. In any case, I’m not sure this is less testable than things like string theory and the multiverse, both of which I suspect Pigliucci would find more scientific.

Reach this writer at michaelb@motherboard.tv.