…across the eons of time, the standard theories suggest, the universe can
recur over and over again in an endless cycle of big bangs, but it’s
hard for nature to make a whole universe. It’s much easier to make
fragments of one, like planets, yourself maybe in a spacesuit or even –
in the most absurd and troubling example – a naked brain floating in
space. Nature tends to do what is easiest, from the standpoint of
energy and probability. And so these fragments – in particular the
brains – would appear far more frequently than real full-fledged
universes, or than us. Or they might be us.
Here is more, the piece also contains a serious scientific discussion of the possibility of reincarnation.
I’ve heard about the theory that the universe may re-occur in an endless cycle of big bangs. Also, if the conditions during the big bang are exactly the same each time that the universe and everything in it including us may be the same each time. I think if I am going to be re-living this life for eternity I better enjoy it. Then I think of all the people who have had horrible lives and I wonder are they doomed to repeat them over and over.
Aaarg. Never trust the NYT to explain anything scientific correctly. Doubly so for the grand philosophy type questions.
The basic ideas, that the Times fails to explain clearly, are along the lines of:
1. If created universes are uniform
2. Universes will have local regions of interesting stuff (essentially statistic anomalies like rolling a 6 ten times in a roll.)
3. We are statistical anomalies – we think we are observing and thinking.
4. A small anomaly (e.g. 10^23 molecules think they went to school in Wisconsin and now are living with their wife in Manhattan) is far more likely than a big anomaly (e.g. there is a Wisconsin and a Manhattan.)
It’s essentially the anthropomorphic argument viewed sideways. Points 1, 3, and 4 are all open to debate. Toss in some infinites and epsilon probabilites, add beer, and you have a great college experience.
But, as Eric says, simulation is *far* more likely. Espcially because we seem to be living in an efficiently computable universe rather than simple rule-driven one.
Herbert West has a very good head on his shoulders… and another one in a dish floating in outer space
Yeah, I read about the folks who say that, because in a couple decades it will be easy to create simulations that perfectly mimic life (as in, World of Warcraft will become more like The Matrix as computing power improves), and since it is likely with the expansion of computing power there will be many times more life simulations than there have been actual lives, and because this span of two decades or so until this is possible is an extremely small fraction of total history, it is highly probable that your life is really just a computer simulation.
I get it. But it just doesn’t seem right, does it. The statistical assumptions remind me of that old phrase about statistics and statisticians.
I’m no Bayesian (through ignorance, not rejection), but does the possibility of computer simulation render Pascal’s wager, well, viable?
I would say it’s even more likely that we’re simulations run by a floating brain. Or floating brains in a simulation?
Scientists verging into theology would do well to consider the ground already covered by theologians. Otherwise, like the naked brains, they will be thinking things that have already been thought.
Comments on this entry are closed.