An animated universe imitates its own existence

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

According to the new hypothesis, the universe imitates its own existence in a "strange loop". An article published by scientists from the Institute for Quantum Gravity Research argues that the hypothesis is based on the theory of panpsychism, according to which everything in nature is animate.

The article was published in the journal Entropy and, according to the authors of the work, is intended to combine the understanding of quantum mechanics with a non-materialistic point of view. In other words, scientists want to understand how real we are and everything that surrounds us. Agree, this is at least an interesting question for modern science and our understanding of the Universe.

What is reality?

How real is reality? What if everything that you are, everything that you know, all the people in your life, and all events do not actually exist physically, but are a very complex simulation? Like in the Rick and Morty animated series, when one of the characters got into a simulation and didn't even notice it. Our regular readers know that philosopher Nick Bostrom addressed this issue in his seminal article "Are we living in a computer simulation?" we may never know the true nature.

I am not a supporter of this idea, but despite all the seeming madness of Bostrom's assumptions, we really do not know what reality is. Modern science is not yet able to understand the quantum world and understand, for example, why, at the atomic level, particles change their behavior when they are observed. At a time when physicists are working on building a mission capable of finding out whether there is a parallel universe or universes, Bostrom's idea does not seem like anything extraordinary.

But the new theory takes a step forward - what if there are no advanced beings, and everything in "reality" is self-imitation, which generates itself from "pure thought?"

The physical universe is a "strange loop," writes the team at Quantum Gravity Research, the Los Angeles-based Institute for Theoretical Physics, founded by scientist and entrepreneur Clay Irwin. The work starts from Bostrom's modeling hypothesis, according to which all reality is an extremely detailed computer program, and asks: instead of relying on advanced life forms to create the technology necessary to create everything in our world, is it not better to assume that the universe itself is a "mental imitation of itself"? Scientists associate this idea with quantum mechanics, considering the universe as one of many possible models of quantum gravity.

One important aspect that distinguishes this point of view from others like it is related to the fact that Bostrom's original hypothesis is materialistic and sees the universe as physical. For Bostrom, we could just be part of a posthuman ancestor simulation. Even the process of evolution itself may simply be a mechanism by which future creatures experience countless processes, purposefully moving people through levels of biological and technological growth. Thus, they generate supposed information or history of our world. Ultimately, we will not notice the difference.

But where does the physical reality come from that would give rise to simulation? Their hypothesis takes a non-materialistic approach, arguing that everything in the universe is information expressed as thought. Thus, the universe "self-actualizes" into its own existence, relying on the underlying algorithms and a rule that researchers call "the principle of effective language." According to this proposal, the simulation of everything that exists is just one "great thought."

How could a simulation come about by itself?

Surprisingly, the answer is simple: she has always been there, according to the researchers, explaining the concept of "timeless emergentism." This idea says that there is no time at all. Instead, there is an overarching thought that is our reality, offering a built-in semblance of a hierarchical order full of “sub-thoughts” that extend all the way down to a wormhole to basic mathematics and fundamental particles. The rule of effective language also enters into force, which assumes that people themselves are such "emergent sub-thoughts" and experience and find meaning in the world through other sub-thoughts (called "code steps or actions") in the most economical way (gee) …

In correspondence with Big Think, physicist David Chester clarified:

While many scientists argue for the truth of materialism, we believe that quantum mechanics can give a hint that our reality is a mental construct. Recent advances in quantum gravity, such as the vision of spacetime arising from a hologram, are also a hint that spacetime is not fundamental. In a sense, the mental construct of reality creates space-time in order to effectively understand itself, creating a network of subconscious entities that can interact and explore the totality of their possibilities.

Scientists associate their hypothesis with panpsychism, which considers everything that exists as thought or consciousness, the purpose of which is to generate meaning or information. If all this is difficult to understand, the authors offer another interesting idea that can connect your day-to-day experience with these philosophical considerations. Think of your dreams as your own personal simulations, the team suggests. Although rather primitive (by the superintelligent standards of the future AI), dreams tend to provide better resolution than current computer simulations and are a great example of the evolution of the human mind.

Most notable is the ultra-high resolution and physics accuracy of these mind-based simulations. They point to lucid dreaming - when the dreamer is aware that he is in a dream - as examples of very accurate simulations created by your mind, which at times cannot be distinguished from any other reality. So how do you know, while you are reading this article, that you are not in a dream? So it’s not that hard to imagine that an extremely powerful computer that we can create in the not too distant future will be able to reproduce this level of detail.

Certainly, some of the ideas of Clay and his team in the academic community are called controversial. But the authors of the work believe that "we should think critically about consciousness and some aspects of philosophy that are inconvenient for some scientists." I cannot but agree, because there are no authorities in science.