NEWS: All We Are Is Pixels in the Wind

GEEK: All We Are Is Pixels in the Wind

Sometimes I think scientists are there for the sole purpose of dreaming up new ways to freak me out and keep me up at night.You could say that's a little narcissistic of me; you could also argue, however, the equally valid possibility that scientists are little more than mini-bosses in the Shigeru Miyamoto-esque eight-bit side scroller that is my life.

I got some interesting feedback from last week's story about Second Life getting all up in real life's grill, one message of which being a link to this story in the New York Times, highlighting some of the life work of Dr. Nick Bostrom. Dr. Bostrom, director of the Future of Humanity Institute as well as a philosophy professor at Oxford University, has some very interesting ideas about the future of humanity; more interesting still are his ideas on how the future may be effecting us now, looping back like an infinite technological paradox. You see, Bostrom has a theory that, in the future, advanced "posthumans" will be big fans of games like Civilization played out with sentient characters on computers with the capacity for untold amounts of AI, and baby, somewhere out there the future is now and we're already living it.

In Bostrom's eleven-page theory (published in Philosophical Quarterly) he proposes an equation that looks something like this:

and what it basically breaks down to is that at least one of the following must theoretically be true:

a.) Mankind will never reach a state of advanced technological wizardry required for artificial-intelligence civilization simulations en masse.
b.) Mankind will reach such a state, but will have evolved to a point where they have better things to do than run civilization sims.
c.) Mankind will and has already reached such a state, and the reality we exist in now is that of a computer-generated simulation.

Just so we're clear, we aren't talking about something like The Matrix, where one could feasibly wake up and unplug himself from the simulation system; Bostrom's hypothesis is somewhere more between the lines of Tron and a futuristic World of Warcraft, millions of cognizant little worlds at the fingertips of millions of would-be gods.

Bostrom's thesis is, if anything, very well thought-out, exploring every facet of this world of possibilities from the cognizant disparity of "characters" to the truly chilling notion that this game is a first-person platform and all of your friends and lovers are, for all intents and purposes, Hylian villagers:

I have half a mind to say, "Yes well, anything's possible," but the other half wants to squint at everyone in search of Koopa Troopa tendencies.

The application of math equations to try and inject logic into the visceral nature of the human experience will probably strike me as somewhat incompatible and insufficient no matter what, but what is truly interesting about the whole argument is its modern theological nature: a flesh-and-blood god to manage our imaginary belief-states, fill in the details of our world, create miracles through save games, and roll stats for a nation of millions. Still more interesting is the approach with which this theory is given: it's not so much about injecting doubt into the unquestionable truth of our existence, but more of an alternate explanation, not something to slow us down but just to take in as information and possible use as the base of a new religion. (A simple task, I'm sure, when being told that we are all pawns in someone's game of World of Warcraft Expansion Pack 100.)

So, I suppose that's that: you keep on keepin' on, whether substantive or someone else's Sim. I guess that's all one really can do, isn't it? What do you think?

Now, if you'll excuse me, I must be going. All this mithril I found in my neighbors' dresser drawers and flower pots isn't just going to spend itself.


If you found this interesting, I recommend picking up Jostein Gaarder's Sophie's World. Similar themes, on a somewhat more luddite level. Hat tip to Tony_T for the link!

Sophies World is a great book, kudos for recommending it.

The idea of life being generated in computers is an interesting one; part of the creationist's arguments I have encountered is that modern science has not been able to create life from the precursor elements it claims it arose from. As our computer simulations are able to become more and more complex, perhaps life will first be created in silica, before any real world attempt is successful. We might become "Gods" in our attempts to show how life doesn't need one to exist.

This kind of thing I think is always best discussed in a group of friends with something being passed around rather than in a scientific seminar

Isn't this theory just a computer-firendly version of Descartes saying that his body may not be real (brain in a jar being poked by "scientist") but his thoughs are, so by being able to think he's able to exist?

But if this guy is right, that would finally explain why my master's thesis director always seemed like a badly coded non playing character from a cheap WoW clone.

Excuse me, the gamer just pressed "brush teeth" and I must obey in my SimLife.

Time to start walking around to see if I can find a plaque in a glacier

Now to figure out a way to communicate with the person running this sim and tell the fucker to pay his equivalent of a chinese gold farmer to send me some fucking gold so I can buy an epic house... once I'm done with the Backpacking Europe expansion pack that is. And while he's at it he can create a new female character to dance and take off her clothes for me. Then he can happily play me until lvl 80 at which time he'll get bored with me, sell his account and I'll get deleted.

Oh, and a fiction book that, in a sense, deals with this notion and is just bloody fantastic is Oryx & Crake by Margaret Atwood. Do yourselves a favour...

Who knows the cheat codes?

Sounds like the good professor read Tad Williams' Otherland series.

Is it science? Not so much. But it's quite interesting as philosophy. The idea that we're all the imaginings of some sentient somewhere certainly isn't new, but the technology twist adds to the idea.

I'm skeptical of that equation, though. Using mathematics to "prove" topics in metaphysics always has the tainted odor of numerology about it.

I'll have to read the entire article later when I have time, but does that "reasonable assumption" involve an infinite universe?

Some another bone.

Ahem. Inhabitants of Hyrule are Hylian.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

Sorry.

Distinction between this and the religious stories we've been told since we were little:
the name of the player of the game.

That would be called "praying".

No way. For one simple reason... we would "crash" way more

I've always been more of a fan of the "We are living in Lisa's petrie dish" sort of explanation (go Simpsons!)

+1 - I used to have a cheat for SimCity that gave me unlimited $$ - anyone figure that code out yet?

Ummm. how does he exclude option "D. Mankind will reach the stage, but has not yet"? Sounds like he confused computer sym with time travel.

A lot like the ol' "brain in a vat" thought experiment. I think it's all generally called solipsism.

_DictionaryGirl_, you might be interested in the discussion about this over at Not Even Wrong.

Here's a nifty little short story on the subject.

Edit: Well... closely related to the subject.

I think so. Not to say there isn't a lot of interesting stuff suggested in this theory, but a lot of it seems to be at the core a kind of rephrasing of basic ontological solipsism. The key difference seems to be that Descartes reached his "brain in a vat" supposition by applying the methodology of radical skepticism, while Bostrom, just the opposite, posits his version of solipsism as a mathematical certainty.

So if I smash this brick on my head? Will a +1 mushroom or some money come out of it?

You're all in the World of Whatever now.

lol I was thinking that too. God mode ...unlimited cash...bring on teh cheats!