The Big TOE

Quantum Gravity otherwise known as the Theory of Everything (TOE) is the Holy Grail of all things physics. Why? Well, there are two types of physics. There is classical physics, the physics you have to deal with in your day-to-day macro world. Then there is quantum physics, the physics of the very, very tiny; the micro worlds which for all practical purposes are, if not irrelevant, at least unnoticed in your day-to-day existence.

Another distinction is that macro or classical physics is a continuum, like a ruler. Quantum or micro physics are bits and pieces; discrete units, like money. You can have one and three quarter inches; you can’t have one and three quarter cents. So what’s the problem?

Well, there are four fundamental forces that control life, the Universe and everything. Three of these are quantum forces or operate from or within the realm of the micro-micro-microscopic. This trilogy is comprised of the strong nuclear force (which hold atomic nuclei together); the weak nuclear force (which allows atomic nuclei to break apart – radioactivity) and electromagnetism (which gives you light to see by and radio and TV to enjoy). The other and final force however is a continuum – gravity. It’s like there being three brothers and one sister!

As in the sibling’s case, physicists suspect that all four are born of one parentage. Alas, the DNA doesn’t match up!  Gravity apparently has different parents! Now that just won’t do. One Universe should allow for, indeed require, one ultimate parentage. Alas, despite all the best efforts of all the finest physics in the world over many generations, the three brothers just don’t share a common DNA with their alleged sister. My resolution is that perhaps that really is the case. The idea that there is quantum gravity is just a straightforward impossibility. There are indeed two sets of parents – one resulting in quantum triplets; the other producing an only child – gravity. The two are unrelated.

To restate the situation, we have the theory of general relativity (gravity) and quantum physics. Both are bedrocks of modern physics. Both are accurate to a high degree of experimental precision. Both aren’t compatible - with each other. Apparently, one (or both) of these theories must be wrong, or at best incomplete. That’s why the unification of the two (a theory of Quantum Gravity) is physics’ Holy Grail. However, that Holy Grail is proving as difficult to find as the Biblical Grail itself! But for the moment, it appears as if the universe has two independent sets of laws (or sets of running software) – one governing the very large (gravity); one the very small (the quantum). This makes no natural or scientific sense.

We have observations of four physical forces yet no theory which unites the three quantum forces (electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force) with the one classical force – gravity. Theory needs to be satisfied. All of the four fundamental forces should be interconnected; some sort of unification principle must be in operation that relates all four, one to the other. However, these four fundamental forces that govern the Universe show no signs of any obvious unification – well actually the three quantum ones do (known as the GUT – Grand Unified Theory), but that’s where the unification ends. Gravity remains the wallflower. If the Big Bang theory is to be proven correct as stated, scientists must of necessity come up with a viable theory of Quantum Gravity that is an acceptable unification of the trio of quantum forces with gravity. There is, to date, no viable theory of Quantum Gravity despite thousands of physicists searching for one over many generations now. Even for the final 30 years of his life Einstein searched for his big TOE but never found it.

In summary, the realm of the micro and the realm of the macro are incompatible, like two different sets of software that are separate and apart but collectively run the cosmos. Again, that makes no sense. It should be relatively easy to unify all four forces. Einstein and thousands in his footsteps have found out the hard way that it’s damn hard to get a TOE. Mother Nature is a bitch!

Now, the real question is what are the implications if there is no such animal as a unified theory or a TOE? What if we have a case of never have so many spent so much time and effort over so little (actually nothing)? With the passage of every day, the missing TOE appears unlikely ever to be found. Then what?

My prediction is that there will never be a TOE because there really are two incompatible sets of software governing the virtual reality cosmos.



The Simulated Universe Concept

Nearly everyone, if asked, will tell you that there is a really real universe out there and that they are part of that natural universe. However, that might not be the case. The case might be that there is a really real virtual universe out there and that you are a part of that simulated universe. In other words, you are akin to being just a character in what are commonly termed video games, only this video game that you are a character in was created by an unknown – let’s call this creator the Supreme Programmer; maybe a human; maybe not. 

THE SIMULATED UNIVERSE!

Q. What Is The Simulated Universe Hypothesis?

A. The human species, especially since the proliferation of the computer and associated technologies, have created thousands of simulated landscapes and virtual beings, from the humble Microsoft office assistant to pilot training simulators to video games that cater to all types of interests and age groups. Entire movies are now computer generated simulations – no actual on-location travel required; no humans need apply in hopes of earning an eventual Oscar for best actor. In view of the explosion of simulation technologies, and it’s only going to increase and get ever more realistic than it already is, the question has arisen, if we can create virtual worlds, might not we in turn be virtual beings ‘living’ in a simulated landscape programmed for some purpose or other, by other beings which might be futuristic humans recreating their past history, or ET’s video game version of “The Life and Times on the Third Rock in the Sol Planetary System”. It’s a best seller on Krypton! Though once just sci-fi speculation, that profound idea that we don’t really exist as flesh-and-blood is now taken very seriously indeed. However, there are many more questions arising from this scenario.

Q. Who gets prime credit for coming up with the Simulated Universe hypothesis?

A. I wish I could, but I can’t. Prime credit should probably go to Professor Nick Bostrom, a philosopher at Oxford University as well as the Director of the Future of Humanity Institute. His original paper, “Are you living in a computer simulation” appeared in the Philosophical Quarterly, volume 53, number 211, 2003. 

Q. How Is The Simulated Universe Created?

A. In the exact same way as computer nerds and geeks here on Earth create all the various thousands of instructional and recreational simulations here on Terra Firma. It’s all in the programming.

Q. Who or what is the Supreme Programmer?

A. Obviously those of a religious leaning would call the Supreme Programmer God, except God is identified with creating a really real reality, not virtual reality. I much prefer a flesh-and-blood Supreme Programmer, which offers up one of two possibilities. The Supreme Programmer could be a human(s) with computing and programming skills far in advance of our own, or the Supreme Programmer could be a non-terrestrial, an alien or an extraterrestrial. Hey, if we can create aliens in out video games, well what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Q. Can software create matter and energy?

A. No. Software can only create virtual or simulated matter and energy.

Q. Is the matter and energy that we experience in our world matter and energy that doesn’t exist?

A. The matter and energy we experience in our world doesn’t really exist because we don’t really exist as a manifestation of matter and energy. Think of those animated cartoons – Bugs Bunny doesn’t exist as matter nor does the carrot he eats, but he still eats the carrot!

Q. How can a mind exist if there is no matter in our world to make our brains?

A. If our mind, and the brain it is housed in, is virtual matter – as it would be if we were simulated – then there’s no need for there to be really real matter in our world. 

Q. There must be really real matter somewhere in order for the Supreme Programmer to exist so he / she / it can create the really real software program.

A. Of course. We may be virtual beings in a simulated universe but that would still require a really real universe and really real reality for the creator of the software to create in – our Supreme Programmer. An analogy is that the characters in our video games or cartoons (like Bugs Bunny) reside in a simulated or cartoon world, but their simulated or cartoon world resides in what we think of as 3-D reality – our universe. 

Q. Does the Supreme Programmer manipulate us in real time as per a terrestrial video game, or has he / she / it just created an initial set of conditions; laws, principles and relationships, and then hit “enter” or “run program” and see how events unfold?

A. The latter. I certainly don’t get the sensation I’m being manipulated by outside forces beyond my everyday comprehension as if I were a character in a video game.

Q. Instead of being the product of computer software, might we be the product of wetware – someone dreaming or daydreaming (or even hallucinating)?

A. Absolutely. We all know how vivid, real, lifelike, and detailed dreams can be. The mind is capable of painting incredibly realistic imagery. The mind is more than capable of constructing virtual reality. Each day billions of virtual reality landscapes are created and dissolved – dreamland landscapes.

Q. What’s in it for me if the Simulated Universe scenario is correct?

A. Well, the Supreme Programmer isn’t much help when it comes to you paying your dues, bills, taxes, or in assisting you when dealing with those day-to-day issues we all have. But, it just might be a key element to your afterlife. End sub-programme routine “Life: Jane Doe”; run sub-programme routine “Afterlife: Jane Doe”. 

Q. Is there anyway we can know that we are just virtual beings in a Simulated Universe?

A. If the Supreme Programmer really knows his (or her or its) stuff, no. You’re programmed not to know.

Q. Is there anyway we can suspect that something’s screwy somewhere, that we are just virtual beings in a Simulated Universe?

A. Computer software often needs tweaking – so look for anomalous tweaks around us. Computer software is often overridden, though usually never 100% completely – so look for the residue of overridden software, like ghostly images. Computer software programming will vary in the detail required – so look to areas that have been given the broad brush treatment where detail is lacking or so glossed over as to present anomalies. Computer programming might contain contradictions, backgrounds not thought through properly – so look around for enigmas – things that can’t be yet are. Look in general for all those ‘oops’ bits. Look in general for anything and everything than can best be explained by software programming or technology, as opposed to any natural forces at work.

Q. I gather therefore that the Simulated Universe hypothesis is like God-of-the-gaps arguments. Anything and everything is explainable.

A. Yes. Unfortunately there’s no getting around this. Religion explains all since “God works in mysterious ways” – that’s a copout. Anything God can explain away software programming can explain away too. 

Q. What is the best argument against the Simulated Universe scenario?

A. Crunch power! The sheer amount of bits and bytes that could be required to simulate to the detail required our existence, life, the Universe and everything, would be massive. Now that’s not to say lots of shortcuts wouldn’t be taken. You could skimp on a lot of the micro details and a lot of the cosmic details, but even taking into account quantum computing it would be a massive set of software programmes. However, if it is a really advanced technological society, human or extraterrestrial, creating our virtual world, well who’s to say what might or might not be possible.

Discussion

When it comes to the Simulated Universe concept, there’s probably a time differential in operation. Just as in some of our simulations we speed up the unfolding action, compressing say a million years of galactic evolution into a few minutes, so too might our Supreme Programmer unravel our virtual reality such that a week, month or year to us might occupy the Supreme Programmer for a few of their seconds or minutes. Presumably it is the broad-brush evolving big picture of interest, not the nitty-gritty second-by-second details of your boring life. 

Then too there are some people to whom the idea of a Simulated Universe and a Supreme Programmer is deeply disturbing. As one person wrote to me, “If I felt I was a puppet on a string, I might just give up and fall in a heap.” Of course the puppet-on-a-string hands-on character in a video game analogy is just one possibility. It’s also quite possible that you are left to your own evolutionary fate with no direct interference or manipulation by the Supreme Programmer other than he / she / it set the initial parameters and then just stood aside as an interested but non-interfering observer.

Actually I find it disturbing and quite incredible that some people might be upset by the Simulated Universe proposal (or any other state of the cosmos for that matter). As one person put it to me, “I can cope with an indifferent universe but not with a malicious one”, the idea being that a Supreme Programmer must of necessity be malicious. The more positive view might be that the Supreme Programmer, the puppeteer pulling the strings, might be pulling your strings in a nice way; in a beneficial way, so that you can and do enjoy “the beauty of the natural world, friendship, music, and the taste of good food, wine and beer!”  Apart from the Supreme Programmer, there actually really is a puppeteer (of sorts) that you dance to – that puppeteer is called society and society pulls your strings! Your days, weeks, months, and years are full of society telling you to do this and don’t do that, from formal legalities to conventional mores. When society says “jump”, you ask, “how high?” 

The Universe simulated or otherwise just is. The Universe is what it is. The Universe is whatever it is. There’s nothing you can do about the state of the Universe. Therefore, cross it off your “I’m concerned about this” list. There’s no point in fretting over what you have no control over.

If the Universe really might be malicious, if someone or something is yanking your chain, and that possibility disturbs you, then it is in your interest to show it otherwise, or if it is, you owe it to yourself to come to terms with that and then move on to newer and better concepts to occupy your mind.

Virtual Reality: The Simulated Universe: Part Two

There really is a really real cosmos that has spawned an extraterrestrial intelligent civilization, or is home to our future descendents, or contains a dreamer, any of which has created a simulated universe that includes us as virtual reality occupants. In support of this, I postulate that the following are suggestive signs – evidence, not proof – of this idea. It all evolves around my observations that when it comes to the cosmos and human affairs, something is screwy somewhere.

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

THE COSMIC CONNECTION (continued)

* Why are all (spin-up or spin-down) electrons, etc. identical? I mean can you think of many objects that are identical down to the absolute last decimal place? No two of anything apart from elementary force and matter particles are absolutely identical, so why are they the exception to the rule? Even ‘identical’ atoms aren’t of necessity identical (since their electrons can be in different energy states); that’s even more so with molecules (some of which can come in left and right-handed forms). However, you could have a software code of bits and bytes that specifies a spin-up electron so each time and place that code appears, you get an absolutely identical spin-up electron. Simple!

* Why is the vacuum energy, experimentally confirmed, 120 orders of magnitude less than theory predicts? This is in fact the worst discrepancy in all of modern physics. However, software programmers can’t think of everything so when they programmed in the value of the vacuum energy, they neglected to program in the theory that would lead to the observed value. 

* Why in various physical happenings, like radioactivity, is there an abandonment of operational cause-and-effect mechanisms? Causality is the absolute fundamental bedrock of just about anyone’s worldview. You have got to have 100% confidence that if X happens, Y follows. However, there are some areas within physics where that does not apply, like radioactivity. In one case, X happens (or doesn’t happen) and radioactive Y decays; in the other case X happens (or doesn’t happen) and radioactive Y doesn’t decay. It’s like sometimes the Sun rises in the morning and sometimes it doesn’t. Now that’s nuts, and only, IMHO, can a software program create such a scenario.

* Why when it comes to various physical happenings, like the Big Bang event or Dark Energy, are there postulated the creation of something-from-nothing in violation of standard conservation laws? Well, when it comes to virtual reality, if you’ve observed and/or played human-created or software-programmed video games, you’ll note that violations of standard physical laws, principles and relationships are frequently the norm.

* Why do we have physical constants that aren’t – constant that is? Have you ever known any software program not to be upgraded, upgraded, and upgraded some more. Computer software is not exempt from the standard “new and improved” spiel that marketing and advertising executives spew out as often as possible. Any software tweak (improvement) is bound to result in tweaks to the virtual reality that software is projecting.

* Why do waves behave like particles and particles behave like waves (wave-particle duality)? For WTF readers, look up the double-slit experiment. The standard explanation is that when emitted, an electron is a particle. When an electron is detected, it is a particle. In-between emission and detection, the electron is a wave, or actually a wave of probability or probability wave, where probability refers to the possibilities where the electron actually is while in transit. Since it can be in just about an infinite number of places at the same time, well that’s more characteristic of a wave than a particle – a wave is something that’s smeared or spread out over an area. Computer software can easily morph a particle into a probability wave and back to a particle again.

* Against all the odds, why do we find ourselves in a Goldilocks universe? I mean, if any of several dozens of variables had even slightly different values, physics as we know it; chemistry as we know it; hence biology as we know it wouldn’t; couldn’t, exist. The cosmos would either be too this or too that and not just absolutely right. Well, a computer programmer programming virtual reality entities in a simulated universe have got to mesh the two into some form of mutual compatibility.  There’s got to be some consistent logic in the simulation in order for the programmer to have a realistic scenario in which to interact with. Creating entities that are programmed as complex composites of matter and energy thus cannot logically exist in a programmed universe where nuclear forces, for example, haven’t been considered and hence never been programmed in.

* How can one explain the total incompatibly between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics? Normally General Relativity (gravity) deals in the realm of the macro. Quantum Mechanics deals in the realm of the micro. There’s not usually much overlap. However, there is overlap when it comes to micro volumes with macro gravity – singularities that exist at the heart of Black Holes and at the time of the Big Bang event some 13.7 billion years ago. A definitive theory of quantum gravity, otherwise oft called a Theory of Everything (TOE), has proved elusive to thousands of theoretical physicists over many, many decades (ever since the era where Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity crawled out of the woodwork – the early years of the 20^th Century). Perhaps TOE just wasn’t meant to be. But on the other hand, there could be two separate and independently apart software programs running our programmer’s simulated universe!

* How is it possible that an electron can occupy just this orbit around an atomic nucleus, or just that orbit, but can quantum jump from one to the other (giving off or absorbing energy), yet cannot ever be found in the in-between space between the two? It’s like if you take the orbits of all eight planets (sorry ‘bout that Pluto) and each planet could jump to the orbit of any other (i.e. – Jupiter to Saturn’s orbit; Saturn to the orbit of Venus; Venus to Jupiter’s orbit, etc.) without ever having to cross the interplanetary space in-between. Well, you can imagine a film where the first few frames have Uranus and Neptune in there appropriate orbits, then the next few frames switch the two so that Neptune is in the orbit of Uranus and vice versa, and the next few frames exchange Jupiter’s and Saturn’s positions with that of Neptune and Uranus, and then the next few frames restore everything back to normalcy. The point is, there are no frames showing Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune anywhere except in a standard orbit, never in-between any two standard orbits. Now what a motion picture can show, computer software programming can equally accomplish.

* How can a fundamental electron particle and a composite proton particle have an equal and opposite electric charge? What are the odds that just by chance, the two balance each other out and so you have electrically neutral atoms? Presumably there’s no natural reason why their charge values couldn’t have been vastly different, as for example are their masses (a proton being some 2000 times more massive than an electron). Of course if there was intelligent design behind those values, the intelligence being that of our software programmer, well, that answers that.

* Neutrinos come in three types or a trilogy of generations. There’s the electron-neutrino; the muon-neutrino; and the tau-neutrino. While that’s straightforward enough, apparently as they all wind their way throughout the cosmos they can oscillate or morph or shape-shift from one kind to another. That’s weird! It’s in fact weird enough having three generations of particles without having them constantly exchanging Halloween masks! If the electron, muon and tau exchanged identities here on Earth, it would play havoc with the electric power grid systems (and home appliances). Well, we’ve all seen shape-shifting in the movies or on TV or in video games. Special effects that seemingly violate common sense are standard operating procedures in the entertainment industry.  

* A cyclic universe is more philosophically satisfying than one that just fades away into an eternal cold state where nothing happens and entropy has reached maximum. A simulation can account for a cyclic universe – the software just loops around and around and so again you get another go and another and another and another though in this case not everything that can happen does happen if the software isn’t reprogrammed.

HUMAN AFFAIRS

* Mythologies sharing many, many common themes are absolutely universal throughout all human cultures. Mythologies tend to be interwoven composites of horror, fantasy, and sci-fi featuring all manner of totally implausible entities like human-animal hybrids, animal-animal hybrids, shape-shifters, those with super-human abilities, and populated with other strange humanoids like giants, the Cyclops and the wee people. Then too there’s all manner of otherworldly places from the depths of Hades to the summit of Mount Olympus and that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Of course to us modern humans, there’s nothing strange about faraway places with strange sounding names and monsters and superheroes. There’s no doubt a film playing at your local cinema right now that features some of the above. The upshot is that Mother Nature is hard-pressed to account for what’s featured in nearly all mythologies; a Supreme Programmer just sits back, relaxes and says “run program”.

* Why are ghosts clothed even though they shouldn’t be? Well, there are G-rated video games and then there are X-rated video games and no doubt our Supreme Programmer wanted a family-friendly rating for their “Life and Times of Planet Earth” software program. Thus, though ghosts should be starkers, sensitivities took precedence and thus our virtual reality reveals our ghosts to be suitably dressed for the occasion.

* How can those Easter Island statues walk on their own accord to their assigned positions? How can Superman fly? How can Captain Kirk beam down thanks to Mr. Scott? CGI special effects rule, OK?

* How did our uniquely human characteristics (i.e. – bipedal gait) naturally come to pass? The high number of rather highly improbably human characteristics just begs for an explanation, explanation lacking IMHO from within the academic confines of physical anthropology. A high IQ, baldness, relative nakedness (furless-ness), facial features, and racial features being other examples, can be easily accounted for if we’re the product of someone’s (or something’s) software design; not so easily explained by natural selection (though artificial selection is another possibility).

* Why Déjà vu? Is this phenomenon perhaps a case of run computer program; then rerun computer program? 

* Why is there such universe belief in an afterlife? Apart from the fact that most of us are nervous about trading in our life for a non-life, and therefore we eagerly clutch at any straw that trades in our life for a life-after-death, there’s no rational or logical reason why you should get another go-round following your allotted (roughly) three score and ten. Near death experiences are not convincing evidence of an afterlife since there never seems to be independent witnesses and alterative biochemical explanations are plausible. In other words, nobody who was a normal mortal has ever made an appearance after they kicked-the-bucket to confirm an afterlife. While the clutching-at-straws explanation is probably satisfactory as a be-all-and-end-all that-explains-that, computer software, if it’s responsible for your life, can also be responsible for your afterlife. So, if a universal belief in an afterlife suggests such a concept, then that concept can be accounted for by computer software. 

* How can one explain miracles? Miracles are basically violations of the known laws, principles and relationships that have been established by the scientific method over the past several centuries. In general, miracles are attributed to supernatural beings and their associated powers. However, there’s no problem showing miracles in film, TV and video games. Violations of the known laws, principles and relationships that have been established by the scientific method over the past several centuries are absolutely commonplace in nearly all sci-fi, fantasy or horror productions, from Saturday morning cartoons to epic Hollywood blockbusters. It would be difficult for you to go down to the seaside and part the waters. It would not be difficult for you to create a CGI film of you heading seaside and parting the waters enabling you to walk from New York City to London without getting your feet wet!

* How can one account for cryptozoology where there are sightings of unknown animals yet we have forever and a day an inability to ever catch them?

Now, if all of these anomalies were trivial ones, they could be easily dismissed, but most aren’t. Some, like miracles and the concept of an afterlife are taken very seriously by a significant proportion of the world’s population although there’s no rational explanation for them. A simulated universe can provide a plausible explanation, even more plausible than that other copout, “God works in mysterious ways”.

The Trilogy of Universes: Problem Solved

There are three possible universes we inhabit. The first is the Natural Universe where the laws, principles and relations of physics, chemistry and biology rule the roost. The second is the Supernatural Universe where one or more supernatural deities reside and miracles are commonplace and the laws, principles and relationships of science can be overridden or suspended. The third is the Simulated Universe where what we perceive as life, the universe and everything is just programmed software and we are virtual beings in a virtual reality. Now, which one of the three possibilities is the one we can actually call home?

A while back I examined the trilogy of possible universes we could inhabit and examined numerous fundamental or universal beliefs part and parcel of nearly all human societies or cultures with the goal of trying to figure out which universe best explained those universals.

The answer to this dilemma has puzzled me for decades. Both a Simulated and a Supernatural Universe better explained the human belief systems better than a Natural Universe. However, the ultimate solution finally yielded itself. At the time I opted for the Simulated Universe. Here I now go into a bit more detail as to why.

 The solution will come as a surprise to most; it certainly came as a shock to me. What decides the issue, IMHO, are ghosts, animate and inanimate! The Simulated Universe rules, and to show why this is so we need something impossible to account for in the Natural Universe, something which is totally illogical in the Supernatural Universe, but absolutely logical and predictable in the Simulated Universe. Ghosts fit the bill.

Now it is easy to say “ghosts don’t exist” or “I don’t believe in ghosts”, and in fact I haven’t ever seen one and to be honest I don’t ever expect to, but there’s massive amounts of eyewitness testimony to the contrary that needs to be taken into account. It’s the classic standoff between “it can’t be therefore it isn’t” and “I know what I saw”. When it comes to the debate between theory and observation, observation has trumped theory too many times not to be taken seriously. Theorists frequently have to “go back to the drawing board” to take into consideration another bona fide observation that contradicted their theoretical worldview.

What do we know about ghosts according to the “I know what I saw” crowd?

* They have been observed by all societies and all cultures since recorded history began, and no doubt prehistoric humans would have ghostly tales to tell too. The total number of observations now must number in the multi-millions. All of this testimony needs to be taken with more than just a grain of salt. The cultural acceptance of ghosts has been more than adequately demonstrated by the popularity of ghostly happenings related in literature, film, and other art forms.

* Ghosts have been captured on film and other manifestations of a non-visual nature have been recorded as well such as audio recordings, temperature readings, etc.

* Since ghosts can be seen, heard and interact with the environment, they must be products of matter and energy.

* Ghosts are not just animated beings, including animals, but have been observed as phantoms of inanimate objects, something the trilogy of universe options needs to deal with.

* The animated ghosts of Homo sapiens - that is ghosts of former living human beings - are observed dressed, that is clothed.

Okay, how does each one of the given trilogy of potential universes deal in turn with the above?

There is absolutely no way known to any sort of physics, chemistry and biology that’s part and parcel of the Natural Universe that can turn 100% deceased human remains (comprised of matter and energy) into an animated ghost of that person (also comprised of matter and energy). The key is accounting for the fact that the above mentioned deceased human remains, remains. The newly dead body hasn’t decreased by any significant amount of mass (or energy) to account for the newly created material ghost. It’s like generating something out of nothing. The Natural Universe has got to account for millions of observations of that which cannot exist by natural science as we understand it.

You’d think the Supernatural Universe would account for ghosts, after all the Supernatural Universe is the universe of the afterlife, and aren’t ghosts proof of life after death? Problem one is how to account for ghostly visions of purely inanimate objects – you can’t. Problem two is that if ghosts are images of a biological human life form, then that image should be starkers! That image should be appearing in their ghostly birthday suit! Why? It’s the biological entity that died, not the clothes they were wearing, so why the ghostly clothing? If the Supernatural Universe cannot deal or come to terms with ghostly manifestations of inanimate objects like ghost ships, then presumably animated objects like ghostly humans cannot be associated with inanimate accoutrements. That is to say, apart from no clothes, human ghosts shouldn’t still have their tooth fillings, hearing aids, peg legs, artificial hip joints or contact lenses.

To the rescue, the Simulated Universe conquers all.

Why would our Supreme Programmer write software subroutines for ghosts and phantom trains, etc.? Who knows? Why do we incorporate the fantasy elements we do into some of our video game creations? That aside, we might though expect the Supreme Programmer’s virtual reality software to generate ghosts that wear clothes!

But there is a second possibility relating ghosts to a Simulated Universe. Alterations or overwrites of existing software, once written, might not always produce 100% deletions and thus might provide unintended effects, ghostly effects of a previous software’s content.

The fly in the Simulated Universe ointment, the one thing that the Simulated Universe cannot give you, is free will. But there’s no way you can verify you have free will. Let’s just say that philosophers and metaphysics professors have been arguing that point: do you or don’t you have free will, for thousands of years. As the saying goes, “you have to believe you have free will; you have no choice in the matter.” It’s illogical to reject a Simulated Universe just because you firmly believe you have free will. That belief or conviction could easily be the result of the software programming. You wouldn’t be any the wiser. You are programmed to believe what you believe.

Summary

If, and only if, you accept the reality of those human belief systems that lend credibility to “I know what I saw” observations of ghosts and related phantom phenomena then the following are the pluses and minuses that are suggestive of what sort of universe we inhabit.

* Natural Universe: The natural universe, the universe where Mother Nature rules the roost, cannot easily account for universals such as an afterlife, a home for afterlife retirees, animated ghosts, inanimate phantoms and variations on that theme. These concepts cannot be accommodated in Mother Nature’s realm.  

* Simulated Universe: With the sole exception of free will, a Simulated Universe can account for, well, life the universe and everything, and especially animated ghosts with clothes and inanimate phantoms.

* Supernatural Universe: With the exception of animated ghosts who shouldn’t be wearing clothes, and inanimate phantoms, a Supernatural Universe can accommodate everything regarding life, the universe and everything universal. 

When crunch comes to crunch, it seems to be a tossup between a Supernatural Universe (with supernatural deities) and a Simulated Universe (with flesh-and-blood computer programmers). If you’re the end product, does it matter much if it’s a god or a programmer that’s responsible? It’s “In the beginning God created” vs. “In the beginning the Supreme Programmer created”.

Anyway, the choice apparently boils down to free will vs. ghosts. Both a Natural Universe ruled by classical (cause-and-effect) physics and a Simulated Universe can remove free will from any consideration. Ghosts on the other hand have been seen and recorded for thousands of years by millions of people – “I know what I saw”. Ghosts have a greater reality quotient than free will. Therefore, I have to give an extra tick to a Simulated Universe scenario which can give you a believable ghost, but not free will vs. a minus-tick to a Supernatural Universe which cannot give you a believable ghost but a free will that cannot be verified.

However, there’s a philosophical reason as well to choose the Supreme Programmer over the Supernatural Deity. It’s my personal bias that natural is preferable to supernatural, lock, stock and barrel. Ultimately, a Simulated Universe has to be positioned within some form of Natural Universe, a universe where mathematics, physics, chemistry, ‘flesh-and-blood’ biology and all things technological reside. That sort of Natural Universe however may be vastly different to what we think of as our really real Big Bang Natural Universe in the same way as our video game universes often bear only superficial resemblance to the reality inhabited by the human programmer who created that video game in the first place.

If however you reject the ghost-filled Simulated Universe scenario, then you slide on down the steep slope to the Supernatural Universe minus ghostly manifestations option. If you reject the Supernatural Universe, even though it gives you allegedly free will, then it’s down the slippery slope to the ghostly realm of the Simulated Universe. If you reject both in favour of the Natural Universe, then you have a lot of spooky enigmas that require some very deep thought and explanations.

For example, take those massive quasi-human appearing statues found on Easter Island, some of which are as tall as a four storey house and weigh as much as 30 to 40 tons. How did they get from where they were quarried to where they now reside, in a land without the wheel or beasts of burden? Well, according to the natives, the finished multi-ton stone statues apparently walked by themselves from their quarry to their final location! That’s the native’s story# and they are sticking to it, and no, I’m not making this up. These animated statues that ‘walk-by-themselves’ are just an impossibility in a Natural Universe; have no real relevance in a Supernatural Universe but are as easy to account for as “run program” in a Simulated Universe.

In fact anything and everything that violates the known natural order (of physics, chemistry and biology), from magic to miracles, can easily be accounted for as just another subroutine of the virtual reality software programming.

# Heyerdahl, Thor; Aku-Aku: The Secret of Easter Island; Rand McNally & Company, Chicago; 1958.

Theory vs. Observation: Part Two

There’s many a conflict that rages between observation and theory. What is observed cannot be; what cannot be alas is observed. Sceptics, those supporting theory, dump down on those who contradict theory because they witnessed something to the contrary. “It can’t be therefore it isn’t.” The witness dumps down on the sceptic with the statement, “I know what I saw”. Impasse! Perhaps there is a third option, one where both theory and observation can coexist.

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

If you observe something that is impossible, and it really is impossible, and if the observation can’t be faulted, and the impossibility of the theory can’t be faulted, what possible resolution can there be? Well one possibility is that some as yet undiscovered genius marries theory and observation and both live happy ever after. That’s certainly happened before and no doubt will happen again. The other is that there needs be a realm where both theory and observation can illogically both exist, same time; same place. That incompatibly of theory and observation, side-by-side, being ultimately compatible is itself a contradiction. Fortunately, there are such realms apart from Alice’s looking glass wonderland.

Now one such realm is your dreams. Though I haven’t experienced it, apparently dreaming of yourself flying (as in Superman, not as in a aircraft) is a common scenario. You’re not Superman; you can’t fly. Your dreams however provide contrary observational evidence that you did fly. And so something both is (observation), and is not (theoretical logic), at the same time. In your dreams you can accomplish six impossible things before breakfast – that is before you wake up.

Even when wide awake it’s relatively easy to imagine images from within your own wetware (that mind within the brain) that can contradict what you know to be impossible with images of doing just that, like for example pitching a perfect game in the seventh game of the World Series and also hitting the winning home run in the bottom of the ninth inning with thousands of female fans rushing onto the field to (well it’s your imagination so fill in the blank)!

Cinema provides another medium. Well there are Superman movies after all, one with a tag line, if I recall correctly along the lines of “you really will believe a man can fly”. Theory: in space no one can hear you scream, yet you hear (that’s a form of observation) the sound of spaceships battling it out with their photon torpedoes and phasers on the big screen.

Closely related, video games or something cut from the same cloth, computer or other simulations. You’re an astronaut simulating a lunar landing. Oops, you slipped up and crashed on the Moon and should have died, but you didn’t really crash and you most certainly didn’t die. You live to simulate another day. Just about any action-oriented video game (observation) will contain so many massive physics anomalies (theoretical impossibilities) as to cause any physics professor to take up the bottle in despair.

And so, if we have mediums that can reconcile theory and observation though both are incompatible, then who’s to say the contradictions we note and log in ‘real’ life may not be really real at all (well we know they can’t be) but perhaps the result of someone else’s dreams or video games and thus we’re not really real at all either! If we exist in a simulated universe, then, as the song title goes, “Heaven knows, anything goes”.

Let’s assume for the moment that the concept of a simulated universe or a virtual reality is actually via computer software, say something akin to a video game or a simulated reality as used for training purposes.

It’s unlikely that your virtual reality can be the product of quasi current day technology, although it’s possible that some human(s) in the 25^th Century have concocted up a 25^th Century equivalent of an ancient history video game titled 21^st Century Planet Earth. That aside, perhaps the programmer is not human at all but an extraterrestrial! Perhaps that extraterrestrial(s) has inserted itself into our virtual reality as our ‘ancient astronauts’ concept, otherwise known as those mythological polytheistic deities part and parcel of nearly all cultures, but could incorporate the more ‘modern’ monotheistic concept as well.

Anyway, one subset of all those thousands of polytheistic deities are those trickster gods known throughout all polytheistic mythologies. As the name suggest, these were deities who weren’t quite always on the up-and-up, but loved to play tricks, sometimes nasty and malevolent tricks. The bottom line is that trickster gods couldn’t be trusted.

But I can imagine that our virtual reality computer programmer fashions itself in the guise of a trickster god. Such a being would delight in creating our virtual reality that contains all of the anomalies we note and log in our seemingly real reality. What better trick than to create dozens of anomalies along the lines of conflicts between theory and observation; that something can both be and not be at the same time, and having ‘his’ created subjects try to figure it all out! What delicious fun enjoying their befuddlement!

Common or well known trickster gods of ancient mythology include Satan (Christianity), Loki (Norse), Maui (Polynesia), Raven & Coyote (North America), and Eros, Prometheus and Hermes (Ancient Greece).

The Simulation Hypothesis in Outline Form: Part Two

INTRODUCTION: The odds are fairly high that we reside in a computer software generated simulation (video game) universe. The chain of logic leading to this conclusion and what a simulated Universe might help explain, are outlined.

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

In cosmology, there’s a fundamental imbalance between the relative amounts of matter and antimatter that just shouldn’t be. Physics predict that there should be equal amounts of matter and antimatter in the Universe because equal amounts should have been created ‘in the beginning’. There apparently isn’t, so there apparently wasn’t. Why that is so is of fundamental importance. You wouldn’t expect God or Mother Nature to goof this up.

In cosmology, ‘dark energy’ is apparently causing our expanding Universe to accelerate that expansion rate ever faster and faster. Trouble is, the greater the expanded space, the more ‘dark energy’ exists which further creates more space creating more ‘dark energy’ in a never ending vicious circle. So ‘dark energy’ is apparently being continually created out of absolutely nothing in total violation of the conservation laws of physics, a concept drummed into every high school student’s grey matter. Again, God or Mother Nature is unlikely to create exceptions to an otherwise apparently universal rule.

In astronomy, there are distant objects (quasars) with wildly differing red-shifts (velocities) which are apparently connected or in close association. If true, it makes a mockery of physics as we know it. I’m sure God or Mother Nature doesn’t make a mockery of physics.

Why are there two separate and apart sets of software running the Universe? There’s the three quantum forces (electromagnetism, the strong nuclear and the weak nuclear) and then there’s gravity. These two arenas, the micro scale quantum and the macro scale where gravity holds sway, just can not be unified, despite attempts by the greatest intellects over many, many decades. Is this the result of an all knowing, all powerful creator God? Would Mother Nature design more than one unified software package when creating Her Universe? 

There’s a concept in physics called the vacuum energy which has been experimentally verified. The trouble is, there are 120 orders of magnitude difference between those experimental results and what theory predicted. It’s the worst discrepancy ever known in science between theoretical expectations and experimental results. To put that in perspective, the difference between one and one hundred is only two orders of magnitude; between one and one thousand is three orders of magnitude; between one and ten thousand is four orders of magnitude, etc.  120 orders of magnitude difference boggles the mind. Something sure is screwy somewhere, and I’m reluctant to blame God or Mother Nature for the stuff up.

Physical constants, like the fine structured constant – aren’t. How can you have a constant in physics that refuses to stick to a constant value? That’s hardly a rational action of a God or Mother Nature.

Then there’s the whole category of quantum weirdness. First up, we have the phenomena of wave-particle duality where sometimes an electron (for example) behaves like a wave; other times like it’s a tiny billiard ball.  Secondly, quantum entanglement where two elementary particles light years apart can seemingly ‘communicate’ with each other instantaneously (something Einstein called “spooky action at a distance”). All things quantum are nightmares created by an irrational mind – hardly the stuff worthy of a God or Mother Nature.

Why are all members of any one of the types of fundamental particles identical? Well, the simulation software code for each type of particle is the exact same, so the particles are the same.

Who ordered that? Speaking of the elementary particles, there’s not only a 2^nd generation or family of these fundamental particles, but a 3^rd generation as well. Why is there a second and third generation or family of the elementary particles that play no role whatsoever in the physics of the Universe? Generation one is the electron, neutrino, up quark and down quark which make up the proton and neutron (and the antiparticle equivalents), but there’s a second generation that’s more massive (the muon instead of the electron but with the same charge) and ditto the third, in this case the electron equivalent being the tauon with the same charge. The interesting bit is that they play absolutely no role in our everyday observable universe. Again, why these 2^nd and 3^rd generation family of particles? Again, why don’t they play any role in life, the Universe and everything? What’s the point of their being? Why create a second and third story on your house if you never use them? Strange doings! In the simulation scenario, well the Supreme Simulator says ‘it seemed like a good idea at the time, but they weren’t ultimately needed’

That feeling of deja vu we all seemingly get once in a while. Well, our Supreme Simulator might stop, reverse, and restart bits and pieces of his overall simulation run – if we’re in that part, well we get the feeling of ‘been there, done that’.

As a general rule of thumb, just about anything science says is near impossible, yet for which there’s some degree of credible eyewitness testimony to the contrary, might be a candidate as a quirk courteous of our Supreme Simulator! Collectively, these topics fall under a general umbrella called ‘anomalies’ and whole books can be read that are full of case histories. For example, your attention is directed to the many volumes compiled by William R. Corliss of anomalies culled from the scientific literature in his Sourcebook Project series. Then there are those wonderful collections of anomaly tomes penned by Charles Fort.

Crop circles have no adequate explanation. Theories revolving around the natural, or human, or alien ultimately make little if any sense. Perhaps crop circles are one of the Supreme Simulator’s ways of making our hum-drum lives ‘interesting’.

Ghosts are explainable as a previously deleted simulated software program that still has some residue left.

The afterlife is just another piece of simulation software.

A final resolution to the ‘is there / isn’t there’ ‘free will’ debate. There isn’t – only the illusion of one – if we live in a simulated Universe. We dance to the tune of the programmer or ‘computer game’ player, if player they be. 

So, in conclusion, to paraphrase a rather famous observation, the Universe is a rather anomalous place, and we probably haven’t seen the end of the weirdness yet. I maintain it’s plausible that some geek (maybe a highly technologically sophisticated extraterrestrial), somewhere out there, created a computer software generated simulation video game called “Planet Earth” or “The Universe” or some such, and, well, the rest is history and here we are.

The Simulation Hypothesis in Outline Form: Part One

INTRODUCTION: The odds are fairly high that we reside in a computer software generated simulation (video game) universe. The chain of logic leading to this conclusion and what a simulated Universe might help explain, are outlined.

EVOLUTION: In the beginning…

There was a natural cause and effect origin to our Universe – the Big Bang event (or something closely related).

From that event the galaxies formed – naturally – galaxies comprised of naturally formed stars, planets and associated debris (like interstellar gas and dust).

On one or more (probably lots more) of these planets there was a natural origin of life event resulting in first a sort of proto-cell, hence a simple, probably unicellular life form.

Such life forms could naturally spread throughout the galaxy via various panspermia mechanisms.

From these simple proto-cells/unicellular life forms, via a process termed ‘evolution by natural selection’, there arose ever more structured and complex multicellular life forms.

Some of those multicellular life forms, via evolutionary pressures, gained an attribute which we call ‘intelligence’ – the ability to figure things out.

Levels of intelligence varied from species to species depending on the specific requirements for their survival needs. Not all species need intelligence to be successful at survival.  

In some species however, intelligence aided survival and reached levels where the species concerned could manipulate objects in their environment to their advantage.

These species could build structures and make use of primitive tools and exhibit behaviour that wasn’t just on a purely instinctive (hardwired) level. [Birds, beavers, ants, termites, spiders, bees, etc. all build structures but purely by instinct, not conscious design.]

From that point, tool use and environmental manipulation could grow ever more sophisticated until ultimately there was a subtle crossing of the threshold between the natural environment controlling the species and the species controlling the environment.

Now things get interesting because that subtle shift is an evolution from the natural towards the artificial – from natural selection to artificial selection.

Our species can now construct artificial environments and products – cities, houses and other artificial artefacts – and manipulate them to their advantage.

The species has now evolved a sophisticated technology.

Part of that technology can be put to use to artificially simulate the…

Origin and evolution of the Universe, galaxies, stars, planets and associated debris. [This is a standard tool of theoretical cosmologists and astrophysicists.]

Technology can simulate possible ways leading to (and maybe ultimately recreate) life’s origins – plural since it may be possible for there to be more than one pathway to an origin of life event.

Technology can now simulate actual or potential biological evolutionary pathways (the roads not taken) up through and including the development of high levels of intelligence.

Simulation technology can hence simulate the artificial technological environments that helped create the simulation technology in the first place.

Such simulations might simulate or recreate the actual roads taken as well as roads not taken (perhaps what we’d call ‘fiction’).

Ultimately, the sophistication of the simulation technology will be such that one can not tell apart simulated ‘reality’ from the actual ‘reality’ it’s simulating.

This is akin to the Turing test for artificial intelligence (A.I.) where if you (in one closed room) hold a conversation with a fellow human being, and an artificially constructed ‘intelligence’ (like those talking computers in Star Trek) who are in a separate closed room, without being able to ultimately figure out which was which or who was who, then you’d have to accept the fact that A.I. exists.

We need to pause here and note that while there is but one real Universe we need concern ourselves with, there could be, within that Universe, thanks to intelligent technologically minded species scattered throughout, the creation of thousands, millions, even billions or more simulated universes or parts thereof.

One of the parts thereof could be the part containing ourselves and our immediate surroundings and environment.

EXPLANATIONS: The usual ways and means of explaining all things in our life, the Universe and everything is to observe and research the natural – what’s Mother Nature up to? That’s one possibility. The second is to appeal to a supernatural creator being – God. But there’s another- the idea that we’re part and parcel of a simulated universe. However, the simulation idea is as much of a copout in explaining life, the Universe, and everything as that of a supernatural creator God, in that anything goes. No matter what, it’s explainable. However, the simulation idea does a better job of rationally or logically explaining a few things that to date just aren’t really explainable in the same satisfactory sense, even when appealing to a supernatural God. The key difference is that one assumes a supernatural God is rational, all powerful, all knowing, and infallible. His life, the Universe and everything should make sense and be totally comprehensible to those creatures (us) supposedly created in His image. However, a Supreme Simulator being, being a biological being (say for argument a human being) does not have the attributes of a supposed supernatural God. A Supreme Simulator’s life, the Universe and everything will not always be rational and make sense and be comprehensible because the Supreme Simulator is not infallible or all knowing or all powerful, and thus his (small ‘h’) creation – his simulation of life, the Universe and everything – will not always be comprehendible to the great unwashed. But, by postulating a fallible Supreme Simulator, a lot of puzzlements start to fall into place.

Overall, there appears to be a quasi-artificial structure to the Universe over many scales or orders of magnitude. That is, there seems to be a sort of fractal pattern, a pattern that repeats from the micro through the macro, the macro squared, the macro cubed, etc. There appears to be intense concentrations of matter/energy separated by vast distances from the nearest similar concentrations of matter/energy. For example, an atomic nucleus is vastly separated from a ‘nearby’ atomic nucleus. Translated, even in a ‘solid’ object, most of the space is just that – space, empty space. Stars are vastly distant from their stellar neighbours relative to the size of typical stars. Galaxies are concentrations of stars, but galaxies are separated by vast distances, distances vastly larger than the dimensions of galaxies themselves. Moving on up the scale of structure, clusters of galaxies mirror the same pattern, in that clusters of galaxies are widely separated. Ditto super-clusters of galaxies shun other super-clusters of galaxies. Finally, entire walls of galactic conglomerations feature, but separated by vast voids where little matter/energy resides. It’s like the bubbly foam when you shake up a soft drink – there are walls, the surfaces of the bubbles that enclose large volumes of empty space. From the incomprehensibility of the extremely tiny to the incomprehensibility of the incredibility vast, there’s empty space that alternates with regions of high density. Now, the question is, would such a regular pattern happen naturally, via Mother Nature, or would it be the result of deliberate planning, say by a Supreme Simulator? 

To be continued…

Our Simulated Universe: Part Four

Introduction: You don’t exist! I don’t exist either! At least we don’t exist in the way that we think we do. We’re simulated beings, maybe wetware simulated (as in someone else’s dream), more likely as not software simulated, like the characters in a video game.

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

Objection! We exist in a 3-D environment. Surely simulations, even dreams, are 2-D. Therefore, we’re not in a simulation! Unfortunately for that argument, 2-D technology is now old hat. Well, there’s now a plethora of 3-D films; 3-D TV is the latest thing. Can the 3-D Internet be far behind? Surely 3-D video games, etc. will soon be available too. Of course the Star Trek holodeck was 3-D, but that’s way future technology, but who knows how quickly those advances in future technology will come. I’m sure holodeck technology, or some reasonable variation of it, will be part and parcel of our future entertainment as well as being useful in training and other role playing scenarios.  

Apart from that, I’m sure the characters in computer or video games; the entities in your dreams, would, if they could, tell you that they do indeed navigate through a 3-D environment – as viewed through their senses. But wait a minute, that’s something that equally applies to us. You navigate in a 3-D world, yet the actual images, or your perception of 3-D reality of that apparent 3-D environment, lies totally inside your mind and in the biochemistry of your brain. Inside your brain, that projection of reality is actually 2-D; interpretation by you however is 3-D, in much the same way perhaps as that hologram image on your credit card is 2-D, but appears 3-D.  So, does that really make you any different from the video game or dream counterparts? They say they exist in 3-D; you say they are 2-D. You say you exist in 3-D, but…?

What If I Knew This? What if I knew that I and everything around me was but a simulation and I had no free will? Well, there’s not a hell of a lot I or you can do about it! At best, all we can wish for is that the Supreme Simulator’s wetware or software that’s responsible doesn’t contain any nasty surprises, or that the dreaming Supreme Simulator doesn’t have an alarm clock set to go off or the temptation to press the delete button.

Free Will: If you wrote (programmed) yourself into a video game; even if you star in your own dream as a whole separate character, you’re dancing to the beat of your drummer software or your drumming mind. The ‘You’ in your own creation, in your own dream, has no free will! If you’re dancing to somebody else’s tune either through their wetware dreams or software programming, you don’t have any free will. Sorry ‘bout that!

Ultimate Origins: Even if the simulation of our Universe / world / us is an accurate scenario, that doesn’t explain the origin of the simulator(s) or of their world and universe – which may, or may not, mirror this (our) simulated one. Ultimate origins get even harder if the Supreme Simulator(s) are in turn simulations from an even more remote reality. One could well argue that if we’re a simulation within a simulation within a simulation, etc., and we in turn are simulating, then the ultimate first cause is the one with the, presumably, free will – the first Supreme (flesh and blood) Simulator starts things off and all else that follows is just programming originating from him / her / it.  Knowledge of such ultimate origins might be forever beyond our reach.

Wetware Versus Software: For all their sophistication – to date anyway – no one has any real difficulty in recognising virtual reality software in the form of a training exercise, a video game, or even a cinema feature ‘filmed’ without real actors and real background. However, the evolution in realism in such media is improving by leaps and bounds. Still, the computer software behind such simulated generations isn’t yet in the same ballpark, or even the same league compared to wetware. Your dreams, nightmares, hallucinations, imaginings, etc. are very realistic indeed.

What If We Are Not Simulated? Well then its business as usual, though it still leaves scientists with a lot of hard work to do to explain the normal everyday life, the Universe and everything, with all its myriad of weird stuffs!

The Return of the Gods: Once upon a time there were many gods (Thor, Odin, Zeus, Apollo, Ares, etc.) and polytheism ruled the roost and the affairs of mortals. Unfortunately they were overthrown and monotheism became flavour of the month. That’s a pity as the old gods had way more appeal – they were flawed and thus way more interesting because they were way more ‘human’. Well, the gods have returned in their new form of Supreme Simulators; the writers of software and creators of video games, their associated characters and environments.

You too could be a Supreme Simulator and create your own video game. Why not? Others have done it. Not into writing software and creating brave new worlds and new life forms? Well, despite that you too can be (and have been) a Supreme Simulator – sleep, perchance to dream, and for a brief while at least create your own virtual realities.  

I rest my case!

Our Simulated Universe: Part Three

Introduction: You don’t exist! I don’t exist either! At least we don’t exist in the way that we think we do. We’re simulated beings, maybe wetware simulated (as in someone else’s dream), more likely as not software simulated, like the characters in a video game.

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

What’s the Best Piece of Evidence? If the Universe and all it contains; its physics (relationships, principles, laws, etc.), were created by either Mother Nature (i.e. – naturally) or via an all-knowing, all-powerful, creator God (i.e. – supernaturally), then presumably everything physics would mesh/interlock and be comprehensible, understandable, with no paradoxes, contradictions, anomalies, etc. Translated, one Universe, one set of hardware; contains just one set of unified physics, one set of software. Now your computer hardware runs on not one, but many sets of software – various functions; various sets of software. So, is the Universe like the way the Universe should be, or is it more akin to your computer programs? Unfortunately, the Universe is like your computer. The Universe’s physics contains two programs; two sets of software. They don’t mesh/interlock; they can not be unified; they are not compatible. Its relativity (macro) software; its quantum mechanics (micro) software and never the twain shall meet. The two are like your basic square peg in a round hole. That’s a flawed creation – it’s an ‘Oops #3’ (see above) – the work of a flawed creator, like of the flesh-and-blood kind. The sort that churns out video game programs – like a Supreme Simulator.

There are other anomalies that physical sciences are having a hard time coming to terms with – that is, explaining them. For example, the concept of ‘dark matter’ must exist in order to explain the rotation and structure of galaxies. However, no one can see this ‘dark matter’. ‘Dark matter’ doesn’t interact with any part of the electromagnetic (EM) spectrum, yet it has gravity. There’s also about five times more ‘dark matter’ in the Universe than there is ordinary matter – ordinary matter is the kind of matter that has gravity and does interact with the EM spectrum, things like you and I and Planet Earth. “Dark matter’ has been in vogue for decades now, yet no one has a real clue what it is – if it is. Maybe it’s simulated.

Then there’s ‘dark energy’. If ordinary matter and ‘dark matter’ make up about a quarter of the mass/energy content of the Universe, ‘dark energy’ makes up the other 75%. And we haven’t the foggiest idea what ‘dark energy’ is. The apparent detection of ‘dark energy’ is over a decade old now. This concept has been introduced to explain why the expansion rate of our Universe is accelerating, contrary to all expectations (the expansion rate should be decelerating because of the Universe’s gravity). So ‘dark energy’ is apparently a kind of antigravity that’s stronger than ordinary gravity that nobody understands, not the least of which is that the expansion of space itself produces ever more ‘dark energy’, ‘dark energy’ being a property of space itself. More space means more ‘dark energy’. That’s like the concept of the ‘free lunch’ and since when can energy be created out of nothing? That’s a violation of the basic physic’s principle of the conservation of matter and energy. So, how weird is the concept of antigravity created out of nothing – just expanding space? Now simulation is also weird!

Basically some 96% of the entire Universe consists of ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’ and nobody has any idea what they are. They are at the present, just labels. The idea that this is all simulated makes about as much sense as anything any physicist has dreamed up to account of this 96% of the cosmos. And of course if 96% is simulated, then no doubt 100% is – including you and I and Planet Earth.

Apart from the above observed anomalies, our simulated Universe theory is also potentially testable. While I can think of no way to prove I’m not a simulated being, one can find evidence that we do live in a simulated universe, and by implication that we too are simulated beings.  No computer software is perfect. Computer software – from our experience – is always being upgraded / updated. If the same applies elsewhere, we could perhaps notice it if we’re a product of that software. So, if there are any software upgrades, they might be detectable as anomalous phenomena in some context or another. Like say one of the physical constants were tweaked and altered ever so slightly (and there is some evidence for that – the fine structure constant for example has apparently changed over astronomical time periods). If physical constants aren’t – constant that is – but variable, then we got troubles with a capital T.

One of the, no, in fact THE most fundamental bedrock of all cosmology is that the physics of the universe are the same everywhere. If that’s not the case, and apparently it’s not seeing as how there’s evidence that the fine structure constant doesn’t have the same value in all parts of the cosmos, then cosmologists are forced to go back to square one. Nothing in terms of what the universe is and what governs it can now be taken anymore as gospel.

Can you really imagine either a supernatural God or a natural Mother Nature creating a cosmos where the physics therein aren’t uniform? If your answer is ‘no’, then you are nearly forced into accepting a third alternative – the universe as we know it is a simulation by a hardly all powerful flesh and blood (supreme simulator). Since the value of the fine structure constant is critical in terms of the Universe being bio-friendly, if it’s not constant, then parts of the Universe are bio-unfriendly. So our Supreme Simulator is apparently happy to create a software detailed pocket of bio-friendly universe within a far larger software un-friendly cosmos. That makes sense to create a small pocket of the simulation to be bio-friendly and just have the rest of the bio-unfriendly Universe simulated by way less sophisticated software as a sort of background wallpaper to the bio-friendly part.

The Multitudes of You: If we exist via a simulation, there of course could exist in turn more than one copy of that simulation; lots, and lots, and lots of copies. If so, there’s more than one copy of you. It’s a kind of parallel universe scenario. The saving grace is that you don’t ever get to meet yourself!

What Are the Odds I’m A Simulated Entity? I think it’s fair to say that based on the level of sophistication of my simulation scenario, you and I aren’t part of a dream, or someone else’s overactive imagination, nor a terrestrial computer software package. So, no terrestrial Supreme Simulator has created us. The possible exception to that observation is the assumption that the simulation that creates us is the product of the terrestrial 20^th or 21^st Century. Of course it’s possible that our simulator is in the terrestrial 30^th or 31^st Century. The simulation’s time period doesn’t have to reflect the same time period as that of the simulator. That aside however, and assuming a non-terrestrial origin, that leaves the rest of the Universe and an extraterrestrial(s) Supreme Simulator(s).

The apparent bottom line, using Planet Earth’s supposed reality as a guide, is that any one real world and real inhabitants can create, wetware and software combined, more, vastly more, nearly infinitely more, simulated worlds and inhabitants with varying degrees of complexity and duration. How many dreams (or active mentally imagined scenarios) have humanity collectively racked up? How many video games have been, are now, and will be on the market? Certainly it’s way more than just one. So, one real world and just one real entity can ultimately create hundreds (maybe thousands plus) of simulated worlds and hundreds (maybe thousands plus) of simulated entities. If that logic applies to Planet Earth’s supposed reality and her actual simulation (wetware and software) packages, then what of those extraterrestrial abodes and advanced civilizations? If there are hundreds, thousands, maybe millions of extraterrestrial technological advanced civilizations out there and each create hundreds, thousands, maybe millions of simulated worlds and beings, well, what odds we’re one of the rare real worlds relative to the massive number of simulated ones?

To be continued…