CAJ: Simulation Theory - Discussion on my CAJ with a friend

Yesterday evening I spent some time talking with my good friend Jasmine about my CAJ “The Simulation Theory”. She had never heard of it so I started to explain her the basic idea. I didn’t have to go on for very long about it. She immediately got the idea and drew the comparison to the movie “Matrix”.

The first thing that came to her mind was the idea of not being responsible for what she was doing. She told me that she didn’t believe in God per se. She believed in a higher power but that could also be a programmer of the future. Then she said something really interesting. She actually liked the idea that there might be a programmer who programmed us and our lives. I found that quite surprising as we talked about this in one of Henry’s classes and the majority of students were afraid of that thought. So I asked her about what precisely she was so happy about if there were to be a programmer. The funny thing is that she admitted that she would feel kind of relieved if there would be somebody out there who had programmed her life. She said that she wouldn’t have to worry about all of her decisions because the programmer would be responsible for taking them. She basically meant that she could pass on all of her responsibilities towards her life to the programmer. In a way, that seemed like a really big relief to her.

The first point of discussion brought us to a next thought on which we couldn’t really decide. We were wondering if the programmer would program really all aspects of our life. Like, if he would decide about anything that happened to us or if he would only provide a frame. We talked quite a while about the idea that maybe he would give all conscious beings in his simulation a general direction of their lives, exactly as we did in “The Sims”. We argued that he might have decided that some individuals should follow a career as mathematicians and others as professional singers. I think this idea was particularly interesting as it implied that our abilities might come from this decision. If let’s say person X was programmed to become a mathematician – doesn’t matter whether he became a teacher in a high school, university professor or scientist – the programmer might have included all the necessary abilities to become one in him. So, this would explain why some people are better in doing one thing than others. In a way, biology wouldn’t be the solution for different abilities within human beings.

Next, we started a discussion about why one should create a whole universe. In general, we found two solutions:

1.    1. the person might just be bored and to him, we are like a big reality show and he is watching what we are doing just for fun.

2.   2.  he might want to let the simulation solve problems which the programmer or his universe is actually suffering from or he might want to see how another universe might have dealt with a particular problem.

Jasmine wasn’t too in favor of the second option so she went more or less with the first one. She argued that the programmer might just be bored and we would be like a big reality show to him. Whenever he felt like watching TV, he would switch on his computer and look what’s happening in his small simulated universe. I believe that this scenario could be absolutely true. That’s exactly what humans do. Instead of living their own lives, they follow the lives of others. We concluded that boredom would be a pretty good reason to create a simulated reality.

Whereas I didn’t have big problems with the second argument, Jasmin really had. She just couldn’t see the point in letting others solve your own problems. She said that going through a rough patch was what makes you stronger. So for her, simulating a universe just to see how these people would solve problems of another universe was just ridiculous. I tried to challenge her by saying that the programmer might have created a simulation where 10 years equal 1 day in the programmer’s life. So he would program the simulation a couple of days before a decision had to be made in his universe, for example war or no war. And he would have created two simulations, one would go for the war and the other one wouldn’t. In one day he could see how these two decisions might develop within ten years. I asked her if that wouldn’t be a promising way to make a great decision. Well, she didn’t think so. She said that it would always depend on the people using these simulations and what they wanted to achieve. I think she clearly has a point there. If these simulations would be used by careless and corrupt politicians (just an example but I think quite an accurate one), they wouldn’t help nobody. They would go for the option which would bring the most profit and not the one which might save a country or maybe the world.

All in all, I think we had a really nice discussion about the Simulation Theory and I liked the way we brought it to an end. Jasmine smiled and said that she never even has thought about the chance that we might not be real. However, she wouldn’t mind and with a laugh she grabbed her glass of wine and said: “Well, my programmer wants me to drink another glass of wine and have fun tonight!” I believe that sometimes it might actually be kind of nice to think that somebody else decided what we should do. If it helps to get my mind of studying and to stop being stressed for just one hour, then I totally go for the idea of a simulated universe.

CAJ: Simulation Theory - 8.) Limitations on research - my point of view

For this blog post I decided to pick up a question of Hendrik's spreadsheet because I think it is interesting to think about it. And I finally want to add some of my personal thoughts on this topic. So here I go...

Every area of research has societal factors which limit its progress. How are outside influences impacting research in the field of science you are looking at for your CAJ? Think of as many examples as you can.

Possible limitation 1: A simulation used for entertainment

People might wonder if a simulation would have a scientific, social or clinical value. If somebody creates a computer simulation which conscious human beings living in it, people might wonder why somebody would do that. Is the simulation of any use? Can there be drawn any value out of a computer simulation? It could be argued that these computer simulations of universes are just some sort of entertainment which is seen in the eyes of most people as useless. The issue that evolves out of a simulation just for fun is that you generate humans and then probably let them suffer. If a reality like ours is created then there will be natural disasters or other forms of pain, for example crime, domestic violence etc.
The way things are at the moment, this sort of entertainment will not be tolerated by the majority of people. It is seen as morally reprehensible to take pleasure in seeing other people suffer or even harm other people on purpose. It does not matter if these people might be “real” in the way we understand “real” at the moment. Within this simulation these generated beings would also be real as for them this simulated universe is their life. In conclusion, I would say that simulations used only for entertainment will be prohibited by law as they violate fundamental values of a modern democratic society.

Possible limitation 2: The reputation of the Simulation Theory

The Simulation Theory is a highly controversial topic. On the one side, there are a lot of physicists and philosophers in favor of this theory and dedicate a lot of their research to find out whether we might really be living in a computer simulation or not. On the other side, many scientists raise their voices against this theory and argue that the Simulation Theory is not science but science fiction. They say that it is like a fairy tale, farfetched and has nothing to do with the search for science. It seems like if a scientist cannot explain a phenomenon, he/she invents something completely ridiculous and tries to prove it. In a way, scientists spending time on proving that our universe might be a computer simulation can be regarded as crazy by their colleagues. It is seen as a way of passing their time when they get stuck on other problems of their research. Their work is not taken seriously by other scientists which might hinder many to actually start working in this field.

Possible limitation 3: Lack of imagination

The major problem of my CAJ is that hardly anybody knows of it. Admittedly, I myself have not heard of it before my teacher told me about it. The same is true for 90% of my peers. I would say that approximately 75% of the population has never heard of this field of research before. It is just an estimation but I personally think it is a fairly accurate one.

Why is it that nobody has heard of this theory before?

Believing that our universe might be a computer simulation is tough not for the majority of people. Why? Simply because this thought seems ridiculous. We grow up learning about the Big Bang as beginning of all life. Some of us practise a religion which tells them about the origin of life. Seeing a computer at the basis of our universe just goes against the common sense. The idea seems so farfetched that people cannot believe in it. Or, which might be the real problem, they do not want to. Our society lacks the ability to get embarked on an adventure. I call it adventure because it actually is exciting to see something from a different perspective. Or even to allow yourself to break with the common rules and just go against the tide. However, such an attitude is considered strange and sometimes even ignorant or antisocial.

Personally, I think this is very sad as life seems to be much more interesting if we allow ourselves to let all of our self-imposed norms and rules behind and just go for something completely new.

Possible limitation 4: Fear

Hand in hand with limitation number three comes limitation number four which I decided to call fear. Fear is an obstacle to growth in every possible way you can think of. Fear might protect you from a lot of things but is also harms you from becoming more open-minded.

When talking about the idea that our reality might not be real, a high number of people freaks out. If my life is not real then it does not have any sense but life has to have a sense. I have to have a purpose. Well, no you do not! People are afraid of new situations because they do not want to leave their comfort zone. At this point I would like to quote Paulo Coelho who once wrote that you have to take risks. We will only understand the miracle of life fully when we allow the unexpected to happen. The miracle of life and the unexpected. I like his way of thinking and even if he did not write about a universe which might be a computer simulation, it seems quite appropriate here. If life is a miracle then anything can happen also the completely unexpected. People tend to forget this. So if our universe is a computer simulation, this is pretty unexpected and a miracle. Humans fear that this theory might come true because they think that they would not be able to deal with it. And this limits research enormously. If no one wants to know or care, no one will fund research and great ideas have no chance to develop.

CAJ: Simulation Theory - 7.) The Quantum Computer as magic key

In my previous posts, I wrote about how we might find out that we are living in a computer simulation. Now, I want to focus on the computer which is needed in order to perform such large-scale simulations of more complex physical systems in which also humans might be generated. 

At the current state of knowledge and of computer technology, the secret of success is a Quantum Computer. 

The first mystery which needs to be solved in relation with a quantum computer is the question: “What is a quantum computer? And in which way is it different to a normal digital computer?”

Traditional computers have been in use for the majority of the 20^th century. The quantum computer is a relatively new phenomenon. It has been first theorized by Paul Benioff in 1981 when he managed to apply quantum theory to computers. He theorized creating a quantum Turing machine.  

Turing machine

The “Turing Machine” plays an important role as most digital computers are based on the Turing Theory. In the 1930’s, Alan Turing developed the Turing machine which is a theoretical computing device which serves as an idealized model for mathematical calculation. It consists of a tape unlimited in length which represents the unlimited memory capacity. The tape is divided into little squares and on every single square can be printed a symbol. So it can either be a 1 or 0 or a left blank. Further, the tape can be moved back and forth which is the elementary operation of the machine. At any moment there is one symbol in the machine and this symbol is called the “scanned symbol”. The machine is capable of altering the scanned symbol and the behavior of the machine is also partly determined by that symbol. However, the symbols elsewhere on the tape do not affect the behavior of the machine. A Turing machine can be adapted to simulate the logic of any computer algorithm. 

The major difference of a Turing machine and a quantum Turing machine is that the tape exists in a quantum state which means that the symbols on the tape can be either 0 or 1 or a superposition of 0 and 1. So the symbols are both 0 and 1 at the same time. This allows the quantum Turing machine to perform many calculations at the same time whereas the normal Turing machine can only perform one. 

As already mentioned above, todays digital computers work like a Turing machine by manipulating bits that exist in one of the two states: 0 or 1. In contrast, a quantum computer works a little differently. These types of computers are not limited to two states. They encode information as quantum bits or qubits, which can exist in superposition. Qubits represent atoms, ions, photons or electrons and their respective control devices that are working together to act as computer memory and a processor. Because a quantum computer can contain these multiple states simultaneously, it has the potential to be millions of times more powerful than today's most powerful supercomputers. This superposition of qubits, according to physicist David Deutsch, provides a quantum computer with its inherent parallelism which allows the computer to work on a million computations at once, while our normal computer works only on one.

A problem that arises with the idea of a quantum computer is that by looking at the subatomic particles, physicists might bump them and thereby change their value. Which basically means that if physicists are trying to look at a qubit in superposition to determine its value the qubit will take the value of either 0 or 1. So they can only get the value at the moment of measuring which is different to the value of the qubit before the measurement because the qubit was in a state of superposition. As a result, the quantum computer turns into a normal digital computer. To solve this problem scientists have to find other ways of making measurements to preserve the system’s integrity. Therefore, quantum computers also utilize another aspect of quantum mechanics known as entanglement which might be the solution to the problem. In quantum physics, if you apply an outside force to two atoms, it can cause them to become entangled and the second atom can take on the properties of the first atom. So if left alone, an atom will spin in all directions. The instant it is disturbed it chooses one spin, or one value; and at the same time, the second entangled atom will choose an opposite spin, or value. This allows scientists to know the value of the qubits without actually looking at them.

However, it has to be mentioned in a very interesting interview with Rainer Blatt, physicist at the

University of Innsbruck - Rainer Blatt

University of Innsbruck, that there do exist models of quantum computers even though the technology is not extremely developed. At the University of Innsbruck they are currently working with two quantum computers. He explained briefly what they look like. Basically, it looks like a normal laptop or computer but is just slightly bigger and unhandy. Further, he is still placed in the laboratory. So he cannot be sold at the current state of technology. It would be possible to build it up on a desk and a laser and a normal computer would be needed to work with it. 

In general, he mentions that this type of computer even though it can be seen as a universal computer will not be needed for private usage. We will need it to solve more advanced problems. So it is a device that can calculate some things better than normal computers but will not be needed for other things like Office-applications. 

looking at the heart of a quantum computer in Innsbruck

One particular interesting aspect of the future use of quantum computers is cryptography, especially the RSA-algorithm. With this algorithm we are currently decoding data and communication. The secret behind this method is that you have a very big number from which you know that it can be divided into two prime numbers. The act of dividing is very difficult for humans as well as for normal computers. Therefore, it is called a hard problem. Since twenty years, there exists an algorithm with which you could decode the encryption program on a quantum computer. As a result, there are many institutions particularly interested in the fast development of quantum computers such as CIA, NSA but also companies as Google or Amazon. 

Rainer Blatt also explained that the primary goal nowadays is to develop quantum computers because you can solve problems which you cannot calculate efficiently at the moment. Especially simulations are seen as major beneficiaries of this type of computer. A quantum computer could easier simulate quantum mechanical characteristics of materials. Simulations of normal computers are not useless but they can only determine an approximate value. 

sources:

http://computer.howstuffworks.com/quantum-computer.htm

http://blogs.faz.net/digitaltwin/2014/03/13/wie-funktioniert-ein-quantencomputer-350/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computer

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/TuringMachine.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_machine

http://www.zeit.de/wissen/2014-04/surren-blinken-leben-quantencomputer/seite-2

CAJ: The Simulation Theory - 6.) Glitches, flaws and errors letting us see what is really real

As elaborated in more detail in the previous post, Rich Terrell provides a good example of how we might be able to prove that we are already living in a computer simulation. 

Professor John D. Barrow

Besides him, I would like to introduce John D. Barrow a physicist and professor for mathematics and physics at the Centre for Mathematical Science at Cambridge University. He published a short paper explaining why, if we were living in a simulated reality, we might expect to see occasional glitches and small drifts in the supposed constants and laws of Nature over time.

Just as Mr. Terrell, he asks himself what the “Great Programmer” of our universe is capable of. He concludes that the simulators determine the laws and can change them; they govern the world. Further, they can engineer anthropic fine-tuning. They can shut down the simulation whenever they want to and intervene or distance themselves from their simulation. They can impose their ethical principles upon their simulated reality. And they can even watch their simulated civilizations become so powerful that they can create their own simulations. 

Mr. Barrow continues by seizing on the perceptions of Terrell. He argued that the simulators will try to avoid the complexity of using a consistent set of laws of Nature in their worlds. It will be more likely that they try to implement realistic effects to create a realistic looking result – as long as no one looks too closely. However, these limitations to complexity would cause occasional problems which might be even visible by the simulated beings. 

He says that even an advanced civilization is not capable of knowing everything about the laws of Nature. Of course they will know so much about physics and programming that they will be able to create universe simulations but these simulations will contain subtle gaps or even errors. Without any doubt the created simulations will work also with these errors. However, these flaws will gradually build up and accumulate so that eventually these realities will cease to compute.

Mr. Barrow provides a possible solution of how to correct these errors. The simulators have to fix the occurring problems one by one using error-correcting computer codes. So the simulators would use this type of temporary protection and update the working laws of Nature to include extra knowledge they had learnt since the simulation was initiated. As a result, the laws of Nature within the simulation might seem to break down every now and again. For sure, the simulated people, especially the scientists, will take notice that their constants of Nature slowly seem to change.

Basically, he argues that we might be able to find out if our reality is really real by observing these glitches or small drifts in the supposed constants and laws of Nature. He concludes saying that the flaws of Nature are therefore as important as the laws of Nature for our understanding of true reality.

Professor Silas Beane

There is also a team around Silas Beane at the University of Bonn in Germany who argue that they might have found a way to prove that we are living in a simulation. According to them it is fairly simple, all we need to do is build our own simulation of the universe and identify constraints. Like Mr. Barrow, this team of physicists says that a simulation of the universe, no matter how powerful, will still have limitations. And they would be observable by the simulated people as constraints on physical processes. 

Actually, they have already simulated the universe as an ultra-small version of it that is down to the femto-scale which is smaller than the nano-scale. They are simulating quantum chromodynamics which is the fundamental force in nature that gives rise to the strong nuclear force among protons and neutrons and to nuclei and their interactions. Further, they replace the space-time continuum with a grid consisting of tiny, tightly spaced cubic “lattices”. They believe that these kinds of simulations might be the forerunners to more powerful ones in which even humans might be generated. As for now, they only want to create accurate models of cosmological processes in order to find out which ones might represent hard limits for simulations. 

At this point I would like to mention that physicists have been creating their own computer simulations of the forces of nature for years. They create them on a very tiny scale, the size of an atomic nucleus. Therefore, they use a three-dimensional grid to model a little chunk of the universe. When they let the program run, they see what happens and in this way, they have been able to simulate the motion and collisions of elementary particles.

Coming back to the simulations of Beane and his team, they generate slight but distinct anomalies. So they asked themselves if they might be able to detect the very same anomalies in our universe. 

In their paper, they state that the Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin cut-off might be the indicator they are looking for. The GZK cut-off is an upper limit on the energy of cosmic rays which are high-energy particles coming to the Earth’s atmosphere from outside the solar system. They state that within their Quantum Chromodynamics Model the GZK cut-off behaves interestingly. So it might be the reveal they are waiting for to prove that we are living in a simulation. 

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/16/opinion/sunday/is-the-universe-a-simulation.html?_r=1&module=ArrowsNav&contentCollection=Opinion&action=keypress&region=FixedLeft&pgtype=article

http://io9.com/5950543/physicists-say-there-may-be-a-way-to-prove-that-we-live-in-a-computer-simulation

http://hinessight.blogs.com/files/living-in-a-simulated-universe.pdf