Normal Service Has Been Resumed

Thanks to the neighbour's cats yowling and caterwauling during the small hours of the morning I woke in a fine grump this morning and my blogging fire is burning brightly.

For some reason while cleaning my teeth this morning I found myself thinking about the theory that we are living inside a giant computer simulation - what's become known as the "Matrix Hypothesis" (at least by me.) I'm not really sure what to make of it. Having read the original paper I'm now even less sure. In many ways the entire argument can be considered in the same manner as the arguments made by the Intelligent Design (it's not science) crowd. If the entire observable universe is a simulation, right down to the sub-atomic level, we have no way of telling. Everything in the universe looks the way it does because the implementors of the simulation made it look that way, including the apparent appearance of it not being a simulation.

This is the same rather weak argument that ID (i.n.s) proponents use to reconcile the observed state of the universe - many billions of years old, evidence for evolutionary history and so forth with their belief that it isn't really like that at all. It obviously looks that way because God made it look that way for some unfathomable reason of his (or her let's not make any assumptions) own. Of course there is no way of disproving this because any experiment you could devise would just show that the universe is the way it is as a consequence of some relatively simple natural laws just as God intended.

You can, however, apply some simple logic to try and work out the truth. If the universe appears to be very old and all the experiments we do show that and the mechanisms for life to evolve on it's own and develop into new forms seem to be present and have even been observed happening at least on a microscopic level (antibiotic resistance anyone?) then the simplest explanation is that's how the universe really is. You don't need to postulate the more unlikely scenario that the universe was created a week last Wednesday with all of it's prehistory fully formed and ready to go. It could have happened, and as mentioned, we of course wouldn't be able to tell, but the most likely explanation is that the observed state of the universe is the real state of the universe. The universe appears to be billions of years old because it is, life appears to evolve because it does and so on.

Now, here's the interesting thought that occurred to me in the bathroom. If I set up a giant simulation of the entire universe there's no way I'd make it so perfect that it was totally indistinguishable from reality. I'd make sure to leave small clues, some little anomalies that the inhabitants of the simuverse would be able to use to deduce the truth about their situation. Perhaps it's just me, but I think that would be pretty funny. I'd probably even have some sort of mechanism in place so people who are able to part the veil of reality so to speak could subvert the logic of the entire system to get some sort of reward for doing so. Wouldn't you? Let's face it, it would just make the whole thing a lot more interesting. And if I think I'd build my simulation(s) that way, you can bet that if there are uncounted billions of them as has been proposed then other people would do the same thing too.

Now, you can argue that a posthuman civilisation would be more mature and responsible than ours and therefore wouldn't do such a thing. It undoubtedly has the potential to cause unnecessary stress and suffering to any of the simulated inhabitants that manage to work it out, but come on, that's just bollocks. There's no reason to suppose that evolved humans would be any more saintly than the current crop of (less-evolved) humans. Even if they are let's not forget that we wouldn't actually be real so there's equally no reason to suppose that the same moral rules would have to apply to their treatment of us. You don't see me agonising about the fate of the zombies in Quake III. And, yes, I know that's not a completely valid argument as our all powerful descendents would be making conscious beings in their computers and not mindless, well, zombies but even if the majority of people would never dream of doing such a thing it would still happen sometimes. After all, the majority of people would never dream of committing murder but murder still happens and slightly messing with the heads of simulated people is nothing like as bad as murder.

Besides, is that any more morally ambiguous than creating an entire simulated universe full of conscious beings in the first place? If we are living in a simuverse they've made it pretty unpleasant for a lot of the people a lot of the time. I'd argue that deliberately giving the inhabitants the chance to work it out and maybe even escape from it is kinder.

Maybe that's all the evidence we need that we're not living in a simulation after all.