To see how this problem is resolved, let's start with a concept from 3D gaming called level-of-detail or LOD. Instead of storing a single 3D model of any given game object, a game that implements LOD will store several models of the same object, each model of varying detail.
When an object is very close to the viewpoint camera in the game, it will be rendered with the most detailed model. When it is very far away, it will be rendered with the lowest detail model. At medium ranges, an in-between model will be selected. In this way, a 3D game engine can manage a truly mind-boggling amount of detail. Note that the engine has on the order of 16 milliseconds to render an entire frame and the viewpoint camera might have millions of polygons (basic 3D surfaces) in view at any given time, at full detail. By selectively employing lower LOD for far away objects, the game engine can reduce the total number of polygons to be rendered in any given frame by 1000x or more, to a realistic number. The key is that the engine is able to maintain an illusion of immersive detail by reducing the detail with which it renders distant objects since the eye is unable to distinguish the difference in visual quality anyway.
Here we see finally the principle of indifference - a thinking tool we introduced in Part 1 of the series - in action. If it doesn't make a difference, there is no difference. The Universe does not really need to "exhaustively compute", it is enough to present a faithful facsimile of causality, where fidelity is defined on the basis of indifference (choice). If your choices would be the same, either way, then there is no actual need for any deeper computation.
Of course, several objections can immediately be raised. First, how is the Universe measuring our hypothetical choices? Second, how is the Universe controlling its "level of detail"? Third, what exactly are the details for which the Universe is varying its level-of-detail?
We have answered the first objection already - the Universe can and really does construct hypothetical sub-universes using virtualization. These sub-universes are replete with every detail of our own "primary" (so to speak) world. By making a complete copy of this world and varying the parameters, it is possible to test whether an individual would have made different choices if the parameters had been different.
The second objection is actually a complex question fallacy. The Universe does not have a set of "level-of-detail knobs" hidden somewhere that it is tuning. Rather, we are asserting that the fundamental structure of the mathematics of the Universe is the same as though the Universe had such a set of "level-of-detail knobs". In other words, the maths must incorporate a level-of-detail parameter that regulates "how deep" the computation goes for any given process. "But the closer we look, there is always more detail to be seen!" This is of course. The same is true of a 3D game engine or a fractal zoom, like a Mandelbrot zoom. Neither 3D games nor fractals actually contain an infinite amount of detail or require an infinite amount of computation to provide an unlimited amount of detail based on how closely the user "zooms in". More detail is served as it is demanded.
The third objection is the most difficult to answer. To answer it, let's consider the HBO series, Westworld. In this fictional world, Westworld is a kind of theme park based on the old American West. It is populated by robots of such exquisite design and fabrication that they are indistinguishable from living humans, short of mechanically tearing them apart to see what's inside.
In this theme park, the worst thing that can happen (for Westworld's revenues) is breaking the fourth wall, that is, for guests to remember that the robots are not human. The park's creator (Dr. Ford) has gone to extensive lengths to construct the artificial intelligence, the park's landscape and the storylines in such a way that guests of the park are sure to remain fully immersed in the experience, no matter how far they choose to take it (for example, shootouts).
We can define level-of-detail from the point of view of Westworld's corporate revenues - a theme park that provides an immersive experience that keeps guests fully satisfied so they remain loyal customers has created a convincing experience. If guests were to leave early or choose not to return because they were dissatisfied, this would mean that the park's models were not well-constructed - the level-of-detail had not been correctly managed.
The same techniques that can be used in a 3D game could be used just as well in a physical theme park like Westworld. You only need to deploy your most convincing and expensive robotics up-close and personal. More distant "background extras" can be built more economically. The point is that "level-of-detail" is not just a question of video-audio rendering (sensory inputs), it is semantic in nature. Thoughts and ideas can have varying levels of detail. Stories and storylines can have varying levels of detail. Individual personas can have varying levels of detail. Nothing that can potentially come to your attention as a subject of contemplation is exempt from level-of-detail - even history itself is not exempt. Thus, we must conclude that the Universe is varying all of these details and that it is capable of doing this because the Universe is, at root, mind.
We return again to the topic of theology. The root "theos" means "God" and "theology" means "the study of God". It is a broad word and encompasses the study of everything from polytheistic deities to idol-worship to Eastern mysticism to Western transcendentalism. For many people, the word "God" evokes something along the lines of: "The Big Boss who's In Charge and tells everyone What To Do and determines whether they've done a Good Job or whether they're in Big Trouble". For our purposes, this kind of thinking is useless. God - or, at least, the idea of God - is relevant to questions of cosmology by virtue of creation. It is God-the-Creator that we are interested in.
The self consists in two halves. One half is acted upon by the world. The other half acts upon the world. I avoid the words "passive" and "active" since we are never purely being acted upon (this would be annihilation) nor ever purely acting (this would be transcendence); each is always present in the other. The underlying structure of the world that acts upon us follows the laws of quantum systems - it is quantum. Likewise, our action upon the world is subject to these same laws; that is to say, whenever I act, I act "into" or "upon" a quantum world.
When we consider the category of super-human action - whether such a being is acted upon, or acting - we quickly run into the cognitive problem of imagination. By definition, I cannot imagine something that only a being greater than myself can imagine. Yet, I have no reason to rule out the existence of such a being. Thus, I have no reason to suppose that I am not existing in the context of the action of such a being or beings. In short, I cannot rule out that I am an ant in some celestial ant-farm. But if I am, this ant-farm is remarkably well-ordered. This judgment is not prejudiced by the preconditions of my complex brain, either, because I can plainly see the correspondence between the simplest imaginable formalisms and the regularities of the world. While I may not be able to understand a being greater than myself, I can understand things that are simpler than myself (e.g. triangles, magnets, and so on), and the world around me is filled to the brim with such simple - and beautifully ordered - things.
Thus, even if I suppose that I am in a celestial ant-farm, I can meaningfully investigate the laws of this ant-farm as far as the limits of my imagination. And when I do, I find that the laws are the laws of quantum systems. The more recent interpretations of quantum mechanics that avoid the paradoxes of older interpretations all center around one hypothesis (some closer than others): the Simulation Hypothesis. When you look around you, what you are seeing is the inside of a quantum computation (what we are calling the Quantum Monad). But if the Universe is indistinguishable from a quantum computer (as Seth Lloyd says), then the question immediately arises: "What is it computing??" What is the point of the simulation? If we are ants in a simulated quantum ant-farm, what are the builders of the ant-farm computing?
One answer to this question is to simply throw up our hands and say, "Such a being must be greater than ourselves, so there is no way we can answer this question." It's just as well to assume that the Universe is random, computing nothing at all, or evolutionary, computing "whatever survives". But this answer is unsatisfactory because our world is tantalizingly comprehensible at levels far above the wave equation. The progress of human history can be interpreted as a series of accidents but it does not have to be interpreted this way. If we suppose that the ant-farm's builders were not completely indifferent to us (perhaps by virtue of the shared light of conscious awareness and the shared reality of action), then there is good reason to suppose that they have "let down a ladder", so to speak. The possibility of the existence of such a ladder makes the question of teleology far more important than navel-gazing over the possibility of the existence of beings incomprehensibly greater than ourselves.
The Omega-based Kardashev scale we encountered earlier when discussing virtualization is a perfect candidate for this teleological ladder. The key to finding a teleological ladder, if it exists, resides in taking the idea seriously. In other words, I have to look for the rungs or I will never be able to climb. But looking for the rungs presupposes the existence of a ladder. So, it's a catch-22 and the only way to break out of it is to decide whether you think there's a ladder there, or not. Yes, I am talking about faith[1]. If we take this idea of a teleological ladder to the limit, we arrive at the idea of the Primum Mobile. The PM is the "closure" of the Quantum Monad. Instead of thinking of the architecture of the world as being something that is itself in flux, the PM arises from thinking of the architecture of the world - including the teleological ladder - as a fully solved equation. My presence here is also part of that solved equation. Perhaps the cognitive dissonance of our present state of existence arises from thinking of ourselves as being separated from the PM instead of being an integral part of the PM.
In the next post, we will look at the final feature of the Quantum Monad theory: the Logos. We will show how the Logos is the closure of the Quantum Monad and how it gives rise to an alternative to the Simulation Hypothesis that I call the Architecture Hypothesis.
Next: Part 22, The Logos
---
1. I use the "5-year-old test" to distinguish between "Illuminist" attitudes and genuine faith. A greater being than myself would not be interested in self-gratifying back-patting over how much cleverer I am than my fellows, so faith is not about believing a quantum simulation theory, it is about plain old child-like faith.
No comments:
Post a Comment