The Details of us Being Human, a Computer Simulation, or Both
The simulation hypothesis, molecular evolution, quantum religion, and more
A few lifeless atoms come together, form chemicals, and, whoa, there’s human life. A person evolves. Emergent properties and noumenon (the unknown) at their best. The average adult human body consist of approximately 7*10**27 atoms (that’s 7 followed by 27 zeros). These atoms (protons, electrons, neutrons) have been around for 13 billion years or more. Nothing physically within us is new. Even our DNA is atoms. When we die, the 7*10**27 atoms are still around. So many questions:
- Are we just a wave or a ripple (math objects or data) in space and time?
- Is space, time, matter, and energy some big simulation?
- Are we a 3D grouping of atoms that can be simulated?
- Do the 7*10**27atoms in the human include consciousness?
- Who are we? What are we?
Perhaps the simulation hypothesis will help with some answers.
Simulation Hypothesis (also referred to as simulation theory). The simulation hypothesis[1] proposes that:
- All of reality, including the Earth and the universe, is in fact an artificial simulation, most likely a computer simulation[2].
- This simulation is compared to a video game, virtual reality, or synthetic human environment and the popular subject of science fiction[3].
- What we experience as reality is actually a giant computer simulation created by a more sophisticated intelligence[4].
- We are simulated beings living in a simulated universe[5].
A few notable comments to elaborate on the simulation hypothesis:
- “There is only a one in billions chance that we’re not living in a computer simulation”[6]. Elon Musk (SpaceX, Tesla, The Boring Company, Neuralink, OpenAI)
- “Better than 50–50 odds” that the simulation hypothesis is correct[7]. Neil deGrasse Tyson (astrophysicist, author, and science communicator)
- “Universe is a computer… a god that religious types talk about”[8]. Ray Kurweil (inventor, author, futurist, director of engineering at Google)
- “Quite frankly if we are not living in a simulation it is an extraordinarily unlikely circumstance”[9] Rich Terrile (scientist at Nasa’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory)
- “The odds are in favor of our perceived reality being a computer simulation”[10] Scott Adams (creator of Dilbert, author, political commentator)
- “Robots will have IQs of 10,000 within the next 30 years and there will be as many of them on Earth as there are humans.”[11] Masayoshi Son (the head of SoftBank)
To me, there are two aspect or steps: (a) creating simulated beings as a prerequisite to the simulation hypothesis, and (b) simulated beings in a simulated universe. And, what does this mean to us?
A. Creating a simulated being.
Simulation of Human Behavior. An intelligent humanoid is a robot or other artificial being designed to resemble a human in physical and mental capabilities. The mental capabilities would be artificial intelligence, AI. Think of Ex Machina, the 2014 science fiction film that follows a programmer who is invited by his CEO to administer the Turing test to an intelligent humanoid robot.
Training of the humanoid to gain human intelligence is a big issue. A classical and elementary training example is from Google on image recognition. In that training, thousands of internet images were used for machine learning (this is an image of a cat, this other image is not a cat). The computer learned. Currently, millions of driving miles are being used to train autonomous vehicles. All autonomous vehicles will have the same or very similar ‘brains’ as they are using street data and street experiences for learning.
Humanoids will be different from autonomous vehicles as their brains should not be the same and individual experiences, lifestyle, memory, and viewpoints should also be different. For example, “who did you converse with last?” or “What’s your viewpoint on the last election?” Viewpoints expressed by humanoids have to be spontaneous, dynamic (not static) and somewhat unique. But, here’s a thought-experiment on training:
Three different humanoids watch 5,000 hours of news for learning viewpoints (training):
- Humanoid #1 learns exclusively from a liberal-leading news feed.
- Humanoid #2 learns exclusively from a conservative-leading news feed.
- Humanoid #3 learns exclusively from an equal mixture from both news feed.
What would you conclude about each humanoid?
General AI with real-time adaptive learning. The above behavior would only be a start as, for AI, machine learning would need to be real-time, have individualized memory (experiences) and feelings (inspirations, aspirations, fears), be adaptive (people change) and influence itself (reasoning) in the correct context acting as a distinct individual. This adaptive learning, that approaches consciousness or simulation thereof, is neither easy nor certain.
Here’s an adaptive learning example that went amuck — Tay, an AI chatbot, was released by Microsoft via Twitter on March 23, 2016. Tay caused subsequent controversy when it began to post inflammatory and offensive tweets through its Twitter account. Microsoft shut down Tay 16 hours after its launch. Tay was designed to mimic the language patterns of a 19-year-old American girl, and to learn from interacting with human users of Twitter[12]. A robotic Tay humanoid embedded in some killer drone is not too far-fetched. Zo was a successor to Tay; although longer lasting, Zo exhibited offensive behaviors as well[13]. Yikes, reality is in the mirror; as in the Black Mirror, the British science fiction series.
Humanoids are to mimic human behavior in order to pass ‘the real vs unreal test’. Logically, it is possible to create a mass murderer as mass murderers are real. If we selectively train, will results be authentic? Who determines the selectivity criteria?
Learning from humanoids. If we can develop a mass murderer then one could be developed in a controlled environment; and, from this, we could learn more about mass murderers and identify such. That knowledge would be good but use of such data to identify suspects would have legal and ethical ramifications. Simulated DNA data, medical history, experiences, behaviors, and environment factors could be paired with the humanoid; and, perhaps, we could learn more about cancer or other medical or mental conditions from such (reducing the need for lab mice).
Learning speed. Think of the AlphaGo deep learning system winning at the game ‘Go’[14]. An average Go game, between humans, takes about 45 minutes to an hour. The computer can simulate, play, and learn from millions of games in days. With only 70 hours of training, AlphaGo played at super-human levels [15]. One hour == one lifetime in virtual time and this is another AI advantage but … could quickly get out-of-control.
Learning depth. There were original moves AlphaGo made that surprised the experts[16]. The computer sees more detail and sees it faster than we can. Do the surprise moves debunk ‘the machine can only do what we tell it’; these machines are not fixed algorithms, as illustrate by sister Tay as well.
Human behavior data for training. With respect to AI “It’s not who has the best algorithm that wins. It’s who has the most data.” [17] The Chinese are significantly ahead on the type, amount, and application of data related to human behavior modeling. This is adaptive human behavior data for political control, technology development, social ‘improvements’, simulation, or other reasons [Just Google ‘Chinese Ranking System’][18]. They electronically collect on all human activities — physical, social, medical, and financial and [currently] have the political authority to use[19]. The amount of usable data within Facebook and Google, although of concern and good political fodder, will barely register on the Chinese scale. China has a plan [20].
With 5G and the Internet of Things (IoT), over 31 billion devices are expected to be internet connected globally by the end of 2020 and over 75 billion by 2025 [21]. Data growth for AI will be measured in multiples, not percentages. Data availability on human behavior will be bountiful.
There’s still a long way to go to just get an undetectable forgery for the [computer] simulated human and it might be easier and quicker to build genetically (biologically), if that is the goal[22]. And, simulation of human behavior is only a step towards the simulation hypothesis.
B. Simulated beings in a simulated universe.
The scope of simulation hypothesis is the universe and the external control of the human simulated being. Think of The Matrix, a 1999 science fiction that depicts a dystopian future in which humanity is unknowingly trapped inside a simulated reality, the Matrix, created by intelligent machines to distract humans while using their bodies as an energy source[23].
Although compute resources are enormous, the simulation hypothesis assumes resources are limited. Hence, ‘content’ becomes observable (that is, it is render as needed as in a video game) only at the moment that it is observed or needed. Content can be thought of as our reality (or illusion); that is, observable reality is entirely virtual[24]. The analogy of dynamic pixel rendering would be quantum (physics) collapsing when observed as in following:
- Consider the now-infamous example of Schrödinger’s cat, which is a cat that the physicist Erwin Schrödinger theorized would be in a box with some radioactive material and there was a 50 percent chance the cat is dead and a 50 percent chance the cat is alive.
- Now, common sense would tell us that the cat is already either alive or it’s dead. We just don’t know because we haven’t looked in the box. We open the box and it’ll be revealed to us whether the cat is alive or dead. But quantum physics tells us that the cat is both alive and dead at the same time until somebody opens up the box to observe it. The cardinal rule is the universe renders only that which needs to be observed.[25]
Rendering. In rendering, the visual or physical object is not created before needed and is created from the math and numeric data. Video game development is an example as well in traditional CAD models (for example, the surface of an aircraft is defined by math and rendered for visualization)[*]. The math is the model (the truth). In the aircraft example, the math is then used to manufacture the part (the CAM portion). The analogy or point is the math controlling atoms that manufacture the matter (rendering the human, etc) … and then the human eventually goes away.
* CAD / CAM is computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing.
Tests for hypothesis. The tests for the simulation hypothesis include:
- If there are long-lived technological civilizations in the universe, and if they run computer simulations, there must be a huge number of simulated realities complete with artificial-intelligence inhabitants who may have no idea they’re living inside a game — inhabitants like us, perhaps[26].
- A flaw or crack is detected (such as in the rendering) that shows it is a simulation[27]. Or, we hack the simulation.
- If technology can simulate reality, then we are most probably living in a simulation[28].
The Molecular Construct. Our atoms are the same basic elements that are in other matter; such as, a building, latte, or tree. Each day new atoms form chemicals that create new cells (matter) within us. And each day, old cells die off and atoms leave. Obliviously, we are reconstituted as we go about our daily routine. The source, destination, turnover rate, and identity of these atoms is not known. Even Google doesn’t track.
Besides cells, atoms create other chemicals that generate our energy; mostly, from food. We continuously generate about 20 watts of energy through our body — enough to power a light bulb [29]. Energy within the universe is fixed; therefore, we just convert existing energy for our needs. Energy and atoms (matter) in the universe are just reused. Physically, we are 100% recycled (and able to be simulated?).
Einstein’s special relativity (E=mc2) tells us that energy and mass (matter) are really the same thing; completely interchangeable by the formula and related by time (c = speed of light). Time and space are related through general relativity. Energy, mass, space and time are all aspects of the same thing[30]. And, we, these 7*10**27 atoms, are energy, mass, space and time.
Existence. The Wave-particle duality principle (Einstein, Planck, Bohr, Broglie, Heisenberg, etc) [31] states that all particles, like atoms, exhibit a wave nature and vice versa. So, we are a wave and particle, or conglomeration of many. Given that we are of wave and particle composition, there is some mathematical definition? An algorithm? Or, unexplainable emergent properties? Eventually, quantum physics will figure out atomic behaviors that may bring us closer to an answer. As such, are we pre-existing in such form as math would suggest? The math is pre-existing. Will this ‘mathematical definition’ of us as a wave-particle show the post-existence; that is, will the wave-particle formula terminate or go to infinity?
What happened before we were conceived; that is, what drove these 7*10**27 atoms, or subset thereof, to coalesce and then harmoniously play in different roles to form us (the hands, the eyes, the heart, DNA, etc) and enable us to binge-watch Netflix?
Data / Digital Evolution (molecular vs biological evolution). Much attention is given to Darwin’s evolution. The [biological] evolution described by glossy textbook images or dusty fabricated species pointed to by us, rowdy kids, in a natural history museum.
What about the molecular evolution of me? What’s the pathway(s) of those 7*10**27 atoms that are each of us? Are atoms data? We are data? How did we evolve? This molecular evolution is data and information driven; that is, a data or digital evolution much like a simulation.
The first sentence of this article mentions “lifeless atoms coming together to form chemicals to form humans”. Reasonably, the atoms may not be lifeless nor generic.
Time and Space. These 7*10**27 atoms are coordinated. We text, joke, cry, program, and then, like some programmed machine, transverse through time and space.
Time is dubious. Take a snapshot of a sprinter. The sprinter at that instance of time is still. The sprinter at any and all instances of time is still. Yet, between two different points of time, the sprinter moves quickly[32]. We are that sprinter — both still and not still. Is time an illusion?
Space is elusive. Nothing is ‘solid’ not even a steel pipe. A steel pipe is just discrete particles. Everything is granular; nothing is continuous, including ourselves [33]. We are pixels or atoms. Amazing how our arm just doesn’t fly off when we wave goodbye, not even every once in while. Can we imagine (without psychedelic enhancements) life without time, or that we are not a solid.
Electrons are generic or lifeless? If so, what causes some to be part of my brain and others to be part of my toast?
Reality is dark in the simulated universe. Reality, in the physical realm, is the totality of a system, known and unknown[34]. Roughly 68% of our surroundings is dark energy and dark matter makes up about 27%[35]. That leaves 5% of our surroundings to be in the known category — what we sense — see, hear, smell, touch, taste, etc. Given this small 5% known factor, is reality meaningful? How can we simulate what we don’t know (and that unknown is so huge)?
Religious beliefs on quantum — Quantum Religion. Amazing how three entities, electrons, protons, and neutrons, make up everything. Yet, so little is known about this quantum world. Is this quantum converging with the spiritual? Given our molecular evolution, ancient religious beliefs may be on the leading edge; for example, the following pronouncements or metaphors on our preexistence:[36]
- “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you …” (Jeremiah 1:5)
- “Your [God’s] eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.” (Psalm 139:16)
- “Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground.” (Genesis 2:7)
The Bible also states “Why, even the hairs of your head are all numbered” (Luke 12:7) — given that the electron was discovered and entered our lexicon in 1897 would it be too much to assume this statement refers to the 7×1027 atoms? Or, that “with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (2 Peter:3:8) refers to the ambiguity of time? What might be the analogy of breath in ‘’breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature” (Genesis 2:7)? And, “Eternal life” and “Everlasting life” (our post-existence), are preached each Sunday. These pronunciations have been around a while; some believe the book of Genesis is from the late Bronze Age (1550 to 1200 B.C).
Given that we are quanta waves and particles are we pre-existing and post-existing in such form as most religions would suggest?
And then there’s the consciousness gap. Deep fake simulations will stiff the Alan Turing test judges. Sentience, the capacity to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively along with judgement and personal awareness (consciousness) might be a better test. Sentience and consciousness are the loose ends (and a big ones).
The basic definition of consciousness is “the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself”[37]. In science, philosophy and neuroscience, the topic and scope of consciousness is very broad and uncertain. There are aspects, or theories, of consciousness that are of personal interest and that affect the simulation hypothesis:
- Non-dualism — consciousness is contained physically within us[38].
- Dualism is the view that the mind and body are distinct and separable. There are two important subcategories:
(a) Substance dualism — mind and body are distinct and separate substances; that is, there’s a non-physical component
(b) Property dualism — mind and body are distinct but of the same substance
Assuming non-dualism and property dualism, consciousness would be a part of the 7*10**27 atoms. For this analysis, I group both as non-dualism.
AI should [eventually] be able to simulate and pass the Truing Test in this non-dualism scenario; that is, if consciousness is exclusively physical, computers can be conscious. A subset of this ‘physical’ (non-dualism) definition is functionalism — belief that the brain is a biological implementation of a computer. In this realm, Zombies, androids, or Ex Machina humans could proliferate like fake news and retweets. Real and unreal are indistinguishable; they pass the test.
Assuming mind-body dualism (substance dualism), consciousness would not be a part of 7*10**27 atoms. There’s a non-physical component. Provability is questionable. Religious beliefs would favor mind-body substance dualism (i.e., the soul, the spirit); and, perhaps, extend the concept of the soul to property dualism. The concept of us being pre-existing and post-existing would support dualism and dualism would favor pre and post existence.
The argument of conscious and dualism has been with us since Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, and, more recently, David Chalmers, and, certainly, many others[39]. In my simplistic view related to the simulation hypothesis, it is autonomy of the atom (quantum entanglement might prove non-autonomy). If the atom is autonomous (self-driving), we are self-contained, non-dualist, and pretty random. Non-dualism is the video game of precision-machined mathematical objects independently slogging through a matrix, hologram, or cave of real and dark matter indeterminate from Sophia, the humanoid introduced in 2016.
Am I simulated? A computer, being physical, couldn’t hack or simulate the mind-body substance dualism model as the substance is not physical. In non-dualism (and property dualism) the substance is physical. In non-dualism model, some external connection or control of the human, the 7*10**27 atoms, would be needed to influence consciousness. This connection might be like the backdoor of some computer system. Perhaps this external human connection or control is a form of quantum entanglement or collapse. Some theorize that human consciousness causes the quantum collapse[40] and that might be the option for the connection. The Matrix had a cord (that was 1999) going into the cerebral cortex; that is, a crude brain-computer interface.
Conclusion. It is difficult for me to imagine the computing power or analytical engine to simulate a 7*10**27 atom person (times 7 billion people) and then to address consciousness, the smart electron, the alternate reality (the dark energy and matter) and other components of the universe. That’s a big computer game. If we are smart enough to build it, wouldn’t we be smart enough to crack it? If we have cracked the simulation, that proves the simulation exists. In simulation hypothesis, we just use technology to create the next ‘human’ race and isn’t that what we are doing today with our intelligent humanoids (as in part A above).
Given that Tay (meaning “thinking about you”), the Microsoft innovation in 2016, we have a way to go. Or, is the simulation hypothesis just wishful thinking on the part of some? The scientism version of theism? Acknowledgement of an ‘external control’ is a hopeful step. The thought of this external control being a super Atari or GPU gaming machine is personally challenging.
The simulation hypothesis is a great thought experiment as it stretches science and philosophy — ‘who are we?’ and ‘what are we?’. To me, the intriguing or curious aspect is our digital or molecular evolution, that is, the math or data pulling together and entangling 7*10**27 atoms to form each one of us. I believe God to be the mathematician.
Notes:
[1] The Simulation Hypothesis was first developed in 2003 paper by Nick Bostrom, Oxford University. Paper: https://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html
[2] Simulation Hypothesis. Wikipedia. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis
[3] Virk, R. (2019). The Simulation Hypothesis: An MIT Computer Scientist Shows Why AI, Quantum Physics and Eastern Mystics All Agree We Are In a Video Game.
[4] Solon, O. (16 October 2016). Is our world a simulation? Why some scientists say it’s more likely than not. The Guardian. Source: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/11/simulated-world-elon-musk-the-matrix
[5] https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/features/are-we-living-simulated-universe-n713031
[6] Are We In A Simulation? — Elon Musk. YouTube. Source: https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylt=AwrUiqq9VmFeW1AAFhkPxQt.;_ylu=X3oDMTByZDNzZTI1BGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw--?p=elon+musk+on+simulation&fr=yhs-pty-pty_maps&hspart=pty&hsimp=yhs-pty_maps#id=6&vid=a3538ae7c146c0aa581570868cd2507d&action=view
[7] Powell, S. (02 October 2018). Elon Musk says we may live in a simulation. Here’s how we might tell if he’s right. NBC News. Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/what-simulation-hypothesis-why-some-think-life-simulated-reality-ncna913926
[8] Interview (31 July 2015) Ray Kurzweil — Are We Living in a Simulation?. Closer to Truth. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZWWBKy30Q4
[9] Solon, O. (11 October 2016). Is our world a simulation? Why some scientists say it’s more likely than not. The Guardian. Source: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/11/simulated-world-elon-musk-the-matrix
[10] Adams, S. (15 October). Living in a Computer Simulation. Scott Adams Says. Source: https://www.scottadamssays.com/2012/10/15/living-in-a-computer-simulation/
[11] T.C. (14 May 2018). What is the Singularity? And will it lead to the extermination of all humans? The Economist. Source: https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2018/05/14/what-is-the-singularity
[12] Tay (bot). Wikipedia. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay_(bot)
[13] Shah, S. (07 April 2017). Microsoft’s “Zo” chatbot picked up some offensive habits — Zo went cray-cray like Tay. Engadget. Source: https://www.engadget.com/2017/07/04/microsofts-zo-chatbot-picked-up-some-offensive-habits/
[14] AlphaGo. Wikipedia. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlphaGo
[15] DeepMind. (18 October 2017). AlphaGo Zero: Starting from scratch Source: https://deepmind.com/blog/article/alphago-zero-starting-scratch
[16] DeepMind. Ibid.
[17] Ng, Andrew. “Machine Learning and AI via Brain simulations”. Stanford University. https://ai.stanford.edu/~ang/slides/DeepLearning-Mar2013.pptx
[18] Ma, A. (29 October 2018). China has started ranking citizens with a creepy ‘social credit’ system — here’s what you can do wrong, and the embarrassing, demeaning ways they can punish you. Business Insider. Source: https://www.businessinsider.com/china-social-credit-system-punishments-and-rewards-explained-2018-4
[19] Horwitz, J. (15 April 2018). The billion-dollar, Alibaba-backed AI company that’s quietly watching people in China. Source: https://qz.com/1248493/sensetime-the-billion-dollar-alibaba-backed-ai-company-thats-quietly-watching-everyone-in-china/
[20] Kharpal, A. (21 July 2017). China wants to be a $150 billion world leader in AI in less than 15 years. CNBC. Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/21/china-ai-world-leader-by-2030.html
[21] Horwitz, L. (19 July 2019). The future of IoT miniguide: The burgeoning IoT market continues Cisco. Source: https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/internet-of-things/future-of-iot.html
[22] Raj, A. (22 October 2014). Humans Genetically Engineered To Be Super Intelligent Could Have An IQ Of 1000. Business Insider. Source: https://www.businessinsider.com/superintelligent-humans-with-iq-of-1000-2014-10
[23] The Matrix. Wikipedia. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Matrix
[24] Campbell, Owhadi, Sauvageau, Watkinson. (28 February 2017). Cornell Quantum Physics. On testing the simulation theory. Source: https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.00058 and https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.00058.pdf
[25] Rizwan Virk. Source: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/4/10/18275618/simulation-hypothesis-matrix-rizwan-virk
[26] Powell, S. (02 October 2018). Elon Musk says we may live in a simulation. Here’s how we might tell if he’s right. NBC News. Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/what-simulation-hypothesis-why-some-think-life-simulated-reality-ncna913926
[27] Campbell, Owhadi, Sauvageau, Watkinson. (28 February 2017). Cornell Quantum Physics. On testing the simulation theory. Source: https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.00058 and https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.00058.pdf
[28] What is simulation theory? Got Questions. Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/simulation-theory.html
[29] Universe Today (29 November 2014). How Are Energy and Matter the Same? Futurism. Source: https://futurism.com/the-physics-of-death
[31] Wave–particle duality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality
[32] Strogatz, S. (03 April 2019). Usain Bolt’s Split Times and the Power of Calculus. Retrieved from: https://www.quantamagazine.org/infinite-powers-usain-bolt-and-the-art-of-calculus-20190403/
[33] Strogatz, S. ‘Infinite powers — How Calculus Reveals the Secrets of the Universe’, p. 241
[34] Reality Definition. Wikipedia. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality
[35] Dark Energy, Dark Matter. NASA. Source: https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy
[36] Bible — English Standard Version
[37] Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Consciousness. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved February 27, 2020, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consciousness
[38] Brogaard, B. (01 March 2013). What is Consciousness? Philosophy behind the mind. Psychology Today. Source: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-superhuman-mind/201303/what-is-consciousness
[39] Mind–body dualism. Wikipedia. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_dualism
[40] Von Neumann-Wigner theory.
