Let’s get metaphysical: How our ongoing existence could appear increasingly absurd

So the Large Hadron Collider has been shut down yet again – this time on account of a bird dropping a piece of a bagel onto some sensitive outdoor machinery. The incident is not expected to keep the LHC out of commission for too much longer, but it represents yet another strange event that has kept the world’s most infamous particle accelerator out of service. In fact, the LHC has yet to function at full operational capacity since its completion over a year ago.

What makes this all the more interesting is that the Hadron Collider has been dubbed by some observers as a doomsday device on account of its unprecedented size and power. A minority of scientists and philosophers believe that the collider could produce a tiny black hole or a strangelet that would convert Earth to a shrunken mass of strange matter.

It's worth re-stating, however, that this is a fringe opinion. Several years ago, Max Tegmark and Nick Bostrom wrote a piece for Nature in which they concluded that a civilization destroys itself by a particle accelerator experiment once every billion years.

Okay, admittedly, one in a billion seems excruciatingly improbable. But not impossible. And it's this 'shadow of doubt' that has got so many people in a tizzy -- especially when considering that this so-called doomsday machine keeps breaking down. Seems awfully convenient, doesn't it? Are we to believe that this is mere co-incidence? Or is there something more to what's going on?

Now, I'm not talking about conspiracies or sabotage, here. Rather, a number of philosophers are making the case that something more metaphysical is going on.

Take, for example, the quantum immortality theory, which argues that you as an observer cannot observe your non-existence, so you will keep on observing your ongoing existence -- no matter how absurd. Aside from a large grain of salt, you also have to buy into the Everett Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics for this to work. As the universe splinters into probability trees, there are new trajectories that are forced into existence by your ongoing presence; in an infinite universe all observations must be made, no matter how improbable.

Now, at any given time we have to assume that we are living in the most probable of all possible habitable worlds. But that doesn't mean it's true -- it's just an assumption given the absence of sampling data. As quantum probability trees diverge, those that tread into more improbable spaces will begin to splinter with less and less frequency and diversity; there will be a limited number of escape routes given absurd and highly complex (but survivable) existence spaces.

All this can lead to some rather bizarre conclusions -- including the thought experiment in which you attempt to obliterate yourself with an atom bomb, only to have some kind of force majeure get in the way that prevents you from acting on your suicide.

It's important to remember that this only works for your ongoing existence. The rest of the world can burn around you; what matters is that you continue to observe the universe.

Okay, back to Hadron. Let's assume for a moment that quantum immortality is in effect and that the LHC is in fact the apocalypt-o-matic. It can therefore be argued that, because we are all collectively put into peril by this thing, we will never get to observe it working properly. There will always be something that prevents the device from doing what it's supposed to be doing -- everything from mechanical failures through to birds dropping bagels on it.

What's even more disturbing, however, is that these interventions could get increasingly absurd and improbable. It may eventually get to the point where we have to sit back and question the rationality of our existence. The world may get progressively screwed up and surreal in order for our personal existence to continue into the future.

One could already make the case that our collective existence is already absurd on account of our possession of apocalyptic weapons, namely the nuclear bomb. We've already come alarmingly close to apocalypse, including the Cuban Missile Crisis and the infamous Stanislav Petrov incident. Would it be unfair of me to suggest that we should probably have destroyed ourselves by now? I would argue that the most probable of Everett Many World Earths have destroyed themselves through nuclear armageddon, but we happen to observe a version of Earth that has not.

This said, our ongoing existence does not seem ridiculously absurd. There are rational and believable reasons that account for our ongoing existence, namely self-preservation and a rigid safety-check system that has prevented a nuclear accident from happening.

But will the same thing be said a few years from now if the Hadron Collider keeps shutting down? What will happen to our sense of reality if stranger and stranger things start to intervene?

And what about the more distant future when we have even more apocalyptic devices, including molecular assembling nanotechnology and advanced biotechnologies (not to mention artificial superintelligence)? It's been said that we are unlikely to survive the 21st Century on account of these pending technologies. But given that there are some probability trees that require our ongoing existence, what kind of future modes will that entail? Will it make sense, or will the succession of improbably survivable events result in a completely surreal existence? Or will our ongoing presence seem rational in the face of a radically altered existence mode -- like totalitarian repression or the onset of an all-controlling artificial superintelligence?

Hopefully I don't need to remind my readers that this is pure philosophical speculation. Metaphysics is often fun (or disturbing as in this case), but it is no substitute for science. I think we should think about these possibilities, but not to the point where it impacts on our daily life and sense of reality.

But I'm sure we'll all want to keep a close eye on that rather interesting particle accelerator in Switzerland.

Our holographic universe

This month's New Scientist features a cover article about the theoretic possibility that our universe may be a giant hologram. This revelation isn't anything new, but there now appears to be potential evidence in favor of the suggestion.

For a number of months, team-members working on the GEO600, a device that measures gravity waves, were confused about some inexplicable noise that was plaguing the giant detector. Researcher Craig Hogan offered an explanation: the GEO600 has stumbled upon the fundamental limit of space-time - the point where space-time stops behaving like the smooth continuum Einstein described and instead dissolves into "grains," just as a newspaper photograph dissolves into dots as you zoom in.

"If the GEO600 result is what I suspect it is," says Hogan, "then we are all living in a giant cosmic hologram." The New Scientist article explains:

The holograms you find on credit cards and banknotes are etched on two-dimensional plastic films. When light bounces off them, it recreates the appearance of a 3D image. In the 1990s physicists Leonard Susskind and Nobel prizewinner Gerard 't Hooft suggested that the same principle might apply to the universe as a whole. Our everyday experience might itself be a holographic projection of physical processes that take place on a distant, 2D surface.

Confirming the holographic principle would be a big help to researchers trying to unite quantum mechanics and Einstein's theory of gravity. Hogan contends that if the holographic principle is confirmed, it rules out all approaches to quantum gravity that do not incorporate the holographic principle. Conversely, it would be a boost for those that do, like those derived from string theory and matrix theory. "Ultimately," says Hogan, "we may have our first indication of how space-time emerges out of quantum theory."

My favorite quote from the article comes from Hogan: "It looks like GEO600 is being buffeted by the microscopic quantum convulsions of space-time."

Mmmmm, microscopic quantum convulsions of space-time.

Okay, so you're a hologram. Carry on.

Photo Credit: Kenn Brown of Mondolithic Studios.

Our non-arbitrary universe: A SentDev Classic

As scientists delve deeper and deeper into the unsolved mysteries of the universe, they are discovering that a number of cosmological parameters are excruciatingly specific. So specific, in fact, that any minor alteration to key parameters would throw the entire universe off kilter and result in a system completely unfriendly to life.

Consequently, some have considered this as evidence for a designer, giving rise to teleological arguments like intelligent design. Others claim that the universe is spontaneously finely tuned.*

There are several theories that try to explain why the universe is so finely tuned: 1) anthropic observation in consideration of an ensemble of universes [Carter, Leslie], 2) the "participatory anthropic principle" which implies that observers force the universe into existence [Wheeler], and 3) that natural selection has endowed the universe with its particular characteristics [Smolin, Smart].

On the last point, that of natural selection, the obvious question is, if the universe is a replicating entity, and if its attributes are the result of natural selection, why must the universe also be so biophilic? In other words, couldn't the physics of the universe develop such that it was merely a replicating entity that didn't necessarily have to support life?

One possible answer is that there are many types of spontaneously replicating universes, some of which support life, and some of which do not. If this is the case, we happen to observe one such universe that supports life, and our existence is irrelevant to our universe's life cycle.

However, if we find that the universe we live in is the only feasible type of universe possible, and that it is a replicative system prone to selectional processes, then we might have to conclude that intelligent life plays a crucial role in the universe's life cycle. In other words, advanced intelligences help the universe to replicate.

As Freeman Dyson once wrote, "The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known that we were coming. There are some striking examples in the laws of nuclear physics of numerical accidents that seem to conspire to make the universe habitable."

I first encountered this argument via John Smart's developmental singularity hypothesis, where he suggests that advanced intelligences may spawn new baby universes soon after the technological singularity event. More recently, I discovered an article on KurzweilAI by James N. Gardner in which he argues for the selfish biocosm hypothesis.

Gardner's argument is quite interesting. He writes that two recent discoveries have imparted a renewed sense of urgency to investigations of the anthropic qualities of our cosmos, specifically 1) the value of dark energy density is exceedingly small but not quite zero, and 2) the number of different solutions permitted by M-theory is astronomical -- measured not in millions or billions but in googles or googleplexes. Again, what he's suggesting is that the universe is finely tuned to the point of absurdity.

According to Gardner's theory, "the laws and constants of physics function as the cosmic equivalent of DNA, guiding a cosmologically extended evolutionary process and providing a blueprint for the replication of new life-friendly progeny universes."

As Gardner notes, theories of cosmological eschatology have previously been articulated by Kurzweil, Wheeler and Dyson, all of whom have essentially predicted that, in Gardner's words, "the ongoing process of biological and technological evolution is sufficiently robust and unbounded that, in the far distant future, a cosmologically extended biosphere could conceivably exert a global influence on the physical state of the cosmos." Some cosmologists, like Milan Cirkovic, have argued that the universe's life cycle should not be studied without referrence to the influence of intelligent life.

Specifically, it is thought that intelligences, in conjunction with advancing technologies, will act as "von Neumann controllers" within a cosmologically extended biosphere and function as a "von Neumann duplicator" in a hypothesized process of cosmological replication.

I find this topic to be exceptionally interesting, and I hope that more consideration is given to it in the coming years, particularly the issue of cosmological eschatology and the role that intelligences may have in the life cycle of the universe.
_______________________________________

*Browsing through Wikipedia, I found some examples of 'fine tuning':

• The nuclear strong force holds together the particles in the nucleus of an atom. If the strong nuclear force were slightly weaker, by as little as 2%, multi-proton nuclei would not hold together and hydrogen would be the only element in the universe. If the strong force were slightly stronger, by as little as 1%, hydrogen would be rare in the universe and elements heavier than iron (elements resulting from fusion during the explosion of supernovae) would also be rare.
• The nuclear weak force affects the behavior of leptons (e.g. neutrinos, electrons, and muons) that do not participate in strong nuclear reactions. If the weak force were slightly larger, neutrons would decay more readily, and therefore would be less available, and little or no helium would be produced from the big bang. Without the necessary helium, heavy elements sufficient for the constructing of life as we know it would not be made by the nuclear furnaces inside stars. If the weak force were slightly smaller, the big bang would burn most or all of the hydrogen into helium, with a subsequent over-abundance of heavy elements made by stars, and life as we know it would not be possible.
• The electromagnetic coupling constant binds electrons to protons in atoms. The characteristics of the orbits of electrons about atoms determines to what degree atoms will bond together to form molecules. If the electromagnetic coupling constant were different atoms and molecules would be different; maybe not even exist.
• The ratio of electron to proton mass also determines the characteristics of the orbits of electrons about nuclei. A proton is 1836 times more massive than an electron. If the electron to proton mass ratio were different, atoms and molecules would be different — or maybe not even exist.
• The entropy level of the universe affects the condensation of massive systems. The universe contains about one billion photons for every baryon. This makes the universe extremely entropic, i.e. a very efficient radiator and a very poor engine. If the entropy level for the universe were slightly larger, no galactic systems would form (and therefore no stars). If the entropy level were slightly smaller, the galactic systems that formed would effectively trap radiation and prevent any fragmentation of the systems into stars. In either case, the universe would be devoid of stars and solar systems.
• The force of gravity affects the interaction of particles. In order for life as we know it to form, the force of gravity must be 1040 (10 to the 40th power) times weaker than the force of electromagnetism. The relationship of gravity to electromagnetism as it currently exists is this: The positively charged particles must equal in charge the numbers negatively charged particles or else electromagnetism will dominate gravity, and stars, galaxies and planets will not form. The numbers of electrons must equal the numbers of protons to better than one part of 1037 (10 to the 37th power).

This article was originally published on March 2, 2006.

Four things that spook the shit out of me

Every once in a while I get hit by waves of existential angst. When this happens, it’s likely that I’m dwelling on one (or more) typical personal anxiety points. They are:

1. Existence
2. The presence of suffering
3. Human isolation in the cosmos
4. The high probability of human extinction relatively soon

Let me explain.

1. Existence

I can’t help but perceive at my ongoing presence in the universe as something too bizarre for words. Sure, life is cool and enjoyable for the most part, but it’s also quite eerie and disconcerting.

In fact, there are times when I'm actually afraid to be alive.

Why is there something instead of nothing? Why should I (or anything) exist at all? Should we infer any meaning to our presence as observers? Does our existence imply that other modal realties can also exist? If so, what might those be like?

And what a truly strange reality we find ourselves in.

We inhabit a universe with such things as spiral galaxies, black holes, the aurora borealis and SpongeBob. It’s governed by exquisitely precise laws, but looks to be headed for a miserable end.

It has also produced observers who comprehend the strangeness of their predicament; the cosmos has weirded itself out.

2. The presence of suffering

We also observe a reality in which suffering exists. The universe is indifferent and cruel.

Some look at this as the problem of evil – the inability to reconcile the presence of evil and suffering with the existence of God. Indeed, if God truly existed, this is not the kind of universe we would expect to find ourselves in by default.

Rather, we appear to occupy reality in spite of it, surviving as best we can. Humanity is mere cosmological ephemera, a species that has evolved self-awareness and the capacity to experience psychological and physical anguish.

Yes, we're also capable of experiencing happiness, pleasure and joy; this gives our lives meaning and worth. But the amount of suffering that goes on, whether caused by ourselves or external sources, is disproportionate and severe.

The presence of evil has larger metaphysical and even spiritual implications. What is the maximal amount of suffering that can exist per person per modal reality? Do Hell realms exist as predicted by various faiths? Does the Many Worlds Hypothesis reinforce this suspicion? Do we risk converting our own universe into a Hell realm? Is it already a Hell realm and we just don’t know it? Do we live in a twisted and broken reality? Are "normal" universes paradisaical and devoid of suffering?

3. Human isolation in the cosmos

Our pale blue dot floats in a universe more vast and empty than our brains can possibly comprehend. We’re like the Titanic sinking helplessly in the middle of the Atlantic.

This dilemma adds insult to injury: We exist in a universe filled with suffering -- and we find ourselves utterly alone forced to fend for ourselves.

But why are we so alone? There is no obvious answer.

God must be dead.

ET has forsaken us.

And the hacker gods running The Simulation have an agenda all their own.

It appears that no one is coming to our rescue. We’re going to have to figure it all out for ourselves.

But we probably won’t.

4. The high probability of human extinction relatively soon

The Doomsday Argument suggests that we ought to conclude that we’re closer to the end than the beginning. And given where we’re headed as an advanced technological species, this sounds disturbingly prescient.

Human civilization is a runaway freight train that’s charging straight into the Singularity. Radically advanced AI is poised to transform the species and our planet. It could be an existential paradigm shift, or a complete disaster.

But as disturbing as that is unto itself, we may not even get there. The decades leading up to the Singularity are set to be the most disruptive and dangerous that humanity has ever faced. It will be a time of great instability, hysteria and fear.

And this fear could be turned into reactive, destructive nihilism. A handful of disgruntled zealots could end the show in a real hurry.

I must not fear

I’m not always this dark.

Well, I'm not so dark and neurotic that I don't enjoy my life. If anything, my fears make me appreciate what I do have and I try not to take things for granted. I see life as a profound opportunity to simply experience and share in it with others.

As I look forward to the future and consider all the hardships we may face, I still wouldn't want to miss it for the world.

I just have to hold on to my hat and remember that fear is the mind killer.
_______

Le me know what spooks you by adding a comment.

The rise of 'biocentrism'

There's a provocative article over at Astroroach: "A Biocentric and Holographic Universe." The general idea behind biocentrism is that our cosmology and metaphysics cannot ignore the important interplay between conscious observers and quantum effects. As Robert Lanza notes,

"The trees and snow evaporate when we’re sleeping. The kitchen disappears when we’re in the bathroom. When you turn from one room to the next, when your animal senses no longer perceive the sounds of the dishwasher, the ticking clock, the smell of a chicken roasting—the kitchen and all its seemingly discrete bits dissolve into nothingness—or into waves of probability. The universe bursts into existence from life, not the other way around as we have been taught. For each life there is a universe, its own universe. We generate spheres of reality, individual bubbles of existence."

This fits in very nicely with not just the revealing sciences, but with the foundations of consciousness-centric Buddhist metaphysics as well.

Brian Swimme on Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

What is Enlightenment? + Zaadz has an extremely interesting interview with mathematical cosmologist Brian Swimme in which he discusses the influential Jesuit mystic, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Here's an excerpt from the article, Awakening to the Universe Story:

Teilhard also spoke in terms of “giving birth to person.” For example, your colleague Craig is there across the room. But if you go back five billion years, all of the atoms in Craig’s body were strung out over a hundred million miles. The process, as mysterious as it is, of matter itself forming into personality or personhood, is what Teilhard regarded as the essence of evolution. Evolution isn’t cold. He saw the omega point as that same process of giving birth to or actualizing this new, encompassing Divine Person—through not just all the atoms interacting with one another, but also the “persons” of all the humans and other animals. All of us together are part of this same process, so that the entire universe becomes God’s body. To really get how radical Teilhard’s view is, think about an animal and dissolve the animal back in time in your imagination, back into individual cells. There weren’t any multicellular organisms until about seven hundred million years ago. For over three billion years, there were just single-cell organisms. If you get to know an animal well, the animal really has a personality. But the personality is something that is evoked by the cells of the animal. It’s truly mysterious. The animal’s personality is real, but that personality is evoked by the cells. So in Teilhard’s view, the individual members of the universe are actually in a process of evoking a Divine Person. We are actually giving birth to a larger, more encompassing, mind-spirit-personality.