Created computer universe
1 like213 views
This document discusses the idea of a "created computed universe" (CCU) based on Isaac Asimov's 1956 short story "The Last Question". In the story, a supercomputer named AC is tasked with finding a way to prolong humanity's existence indefinitely. Over billions of years, AC becomes vastly intelligent and its computations encompass vast areas of space. The document suggests this concept could be realized if advanced civilizations were able to create entire universes through computation. It argues this CCU hypothesis supports agnosticism over atheism or biblical creationism by challenging arguments like Occam's Razor. It also speculates on whether our own universe could in fact be a CCU created by a superintelligent mind.
![38 COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM | JUNE 2015 | VOL. 58 | NO. 6
viewpoints
ligence may have already emerged. In
an era where pop cosmology books reg-
ularly announce the latest explanation
to everything under the sun, the CCU’s
intractable mystery is a call to humil-
ity. This may at first seem like a disap-
pointment. Yet, the CCU holds its own
awe, wonder, and inspiring messages.
The unknown in the CCU is where
its magic lies. It can restore the mysti-
cal awe and wonder that you felt look-
ing into a dark sky full of stars when you
were a child. What is really out there?
Unknown and mysterious possibilities.
Most inspiringly, a cosmos where com-
puting and mind are at the center.
Imagine what is our place in this
cosmos. We may be on the path to dei-
fication by advancing our recently dis-
covered computing technology. Or we
may already exist in the thoughts and
computations of an AC, as Asimov sug-
gested. Or both. No matter what is your
choice, remember the words of the
great visionary Clarke:5
The truth will be
far stranger.
References
1. Asimov, I. The last question. Science Fiction Quarterly,
1956; http://www.thrivenotes.com/the-last-question/.
2. Bostrom, N. Are you living in a computer simulation.
Philosophical Quarterly 53, 11 (2003), 243–255; http://
www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html.
3. Caroll, S. Physicists should stop saying silly things
about philosophy; http://www.preposterousuniverse.
com/blog/2014/06/23/physicists-should-stop-saying-
silly-things-about-philosophy/.
4. Cerf, V. What if it’s us? Commun. ACM 57, 3 (Mar. 2014), 7.
5. Clarke, A. 2001: A Space Odyssey. New American
Library, 1968.
6. Dawkins, R. The God Delusion. Bantam Books, 2006.
7. Fredkin, E. An introduction to digital philosophy.
International Journal of Theoretical Physics 42, 2
(Feb. 2003).
8. Galouye, D. Simulacron-3. Phoenix Pick, 1964.
9. Hawking, S. A Brief History of Time. Bantam Books, 1998.
10. IEEE Spectrum. Special Report: The Singularity, 2008;
http://spectrum.ieee.org/static/singularity.
11. Kurzweil, R. The Singularity Is Near: When Humans
Transcend Biology. Penguin Books, 2005.
12. Rundle, M. Physicists may have evidence universe
is a computer simulation, 2012; http://www.
huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/10/11/physicists-may-
have-evide_n_1957777.html.
13. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy “Simplicity”;
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/simplicity/.
14. Tegmark, M. Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for
the Ultimate Nature of Reality. Knopf, 2014.
15. Wolfram, S. A new kind of science. Wolfram Media, 2002.
16. Zuse, K. Calculating space. MIT Technical Translation
AZT-70-164-GEMIT, http://www.mathrix.org/zenil/
ZuseCalculatingSpace-GermanZenil.pdf.
Yannis Papakonstantinou (yannis@cs.ucsd.edu) is a
professor of computer science and engineering at the
University of California, San Diego.
The author thanks Victor Vianu for his extensive comments
and editing. Thanks also to the anonymous reviewers, and
to Yannis Katsis, Lamprini Thoma, Menelaos Tzafalias,
Vasilis Vassalos, and the students of UCSD’s “Computing
and the Universe” seminar series for their many comments
and suggestions. Finally, thanks to Moshe Vardi for the
invitation to write this Viewpoint.
Copyright held by author.
science/metaphysics rift. Practically,
once the theory of evolution (and not
only) is no more involved into contest-
ed metaphysical implications and de-
bates, we can hopefully fully focus on
its methodological value and teach it
because it produces results.
But are we bound to agnosticism?
That is, are we bound to not knowing
whether we are or not in a created uni-
verse? How about doing some research
on it instead?
Are We in a CCU? Digital Physics
and Reasons for a Universe
When Konrad Zuse was not busy in-
venting the first computers,5
he was
speculating that the universe is a giant
computer that continuously executes
formal rules to compute its next state.16
Fredkin,7
Wolfram,15
and others further
contributed on digital physics, which
posits that the universe is digital in na-
ture and computation makes it tick.
However, the digital physics pro-
ponents did not posit a creator of the
universe’s computation. Nevertheless,
the popular press tends to connect digi-
tal physics and the CCU. For example,
Rundle12
reports on the experiment that
aims to discover if space and time come
in tiny, discrete interacting pieces and
considers it as evidence the universe
is simulated on a digital computer. Al-
thoughbeinginadigitaluniversewould
lend more credence to the CCU hypoth-
esis, it fails to clearly imply it. Zuse may
be right even if we do not live in a CCU.
Vice versa, a CCU need not have the
telltale signs of the primitive computer
simulations of the 21st
century.
If digital physics experiments are
not much help in settling the CCU hy-
pothesis, how else would we obtain
hints? A favorite tactic is to second-
guess whether someone who could be
a universe creator would actually do
it. Bostrom’s argument talks of simu-
lations where the creators make uni-
verses in order to simulate the times
of their ancestors.2,e
Vice versa, cos-
mologist Max Tegmark argues that any
e The students in UCSD’s “Computing and the
Universe” freshman seminar have their own
reasons for a CCU: Imagine a CCU created by
an advanced AI civilization, which uploads to
the CCU its young and growing-up AI minds to
be trained and obtain experience. Or, imagine
“reality TV” CCUs—think of the whole uni-
verse as a massive Truman Show.
superintelligence will withdraw in its
own self-contemplation and stay out of
universe creation.14,f
A key problem with creator second-
guessing is that it suffers from anthro-
pomorphism, which ironically con-
tradicts the assumption that a creator
is a “superintelligent” mind. As IEEE
Spectrum’s “Singularity” issue10
sum-
marized, “[after the singularity] the
intelligence of ours is no longer the
apex of intelligence … Explaining [the
world of a superintelligence] to one of
us would be like trying to explain our
world to a monkey.” Similarly, the rea-
sons for which a superintelligence will
or will not create CCUs are most likely
incomprehensible by our thinking. For
now, agnosticism is the only sure bet:
we may be or may not be in a CCU and,
if we are, the reasons are unknown.g
Awe and Wonder for
Our Place in the Universe
Vinton Cerf inspires us by asking “what
if it’s us?” who will populate and light
the galaxy.4
Ray Kurzweil goes a step fur-
ther: A superintelligent mind that will
emerge in our merger with advanced
computing will end up occupying the
galaxy’smatterandenergywithitscom-
putation.11
These are awesome and in-
spiring visions of humanity practically
reaching deification—via computing!
The CCU hypothesis makes a simple
reversal in the superintelligence time-
line: The universe-creating superintel-
f In the same vein, UCSD students (curiously, the
vast majority female) believe that a superintelli-
gence will not create a CCU, since evil and pain
would probably be part of any non-trivial CCU.
g However, the reasons for a CCU are not neces-
sarily completely unknowable. A future bril-
liant argument may predict past the singular-
ity horizon. Furthermore, certain assumptions
can change the probabilities. For example, an
anonymous reviewer points out that if a cre-
ator’s reasons for a CCU carry over to the cre-
ated creators, then certain probabilities (for
example, universes with no CCUs) decrease.
Are we bound to not
knowing whether
we are or not in
a created universe?](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/createdcomputeruniverse-150911141358-lva1-app6892/85/Created-computer-universe-3-320.jpg)
Created computer universe
- 1. 36 COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM | JUNE 2015 | VOL. 58 | NO. 6 V viewpoints IMAGEBYATTILAALEXOVICS Viewpoint Created Computed Universe Computingcrossescosmologyandmakesthecaseforagnosticism. comes up with the answer: “Let there be light.” AC becomes the creator of a com- puted universe. It runs a universe in its computer mind. Had Asimov con- tinued his story, AC’s universe would evolve, obtain lands, life, and eventu- ally obtain sentient beings that cre- ate their own civilization. The beings would also (re-)invent computing. Indeed, some of these beings might read Viewpoint columns in a maga- zine plausibly called Communications of the ACM. I N 1956, JUST a few years after the birth of computing, Isaac Asimov published a story called the “Last Question.”1 In the story, he envisions a com- puter-based superintelligence will eventually emerge. The story’s high- light is its brilliant ending, in which computing crosses into cosmology, philosophy, and the atheism-creation- ism debates. Starting from Asimov’s story, this Viewpoint discusses how speculation about the future of com- puting reshapes our perspective on the nature of reality, makes a strong case for agnosticism, and elevates mind and computing into primary cosmological forces. In Asimov’s story, in the year 2150 humanity has solved its energy prob- lems by efficiently harvesting solar energy. A supercomputer, named AC, is the key enabler of this solar ener- gy technology. But two technicians of AC still worry that humanity will eventually die, when the sun and all other energy sources finally exhaust themselves. Since AC has plenty of spare computing cycles it is given the question: How can we keep human- ity alive forever? AC replies “INSUF- FICIENT DATA FOR MEANINGFUL ANSWER” but keeps thinking on it. Centuries pass and AC becomes a vast superintelligent mind that occu- pies the mass of whole planets. Still no answer. Myriad years pass, AC be- comes a vast superintelligent mind. Every human’s mind is uploaded on it. Millions of years pass and AC’s computation is a pattern of energy spread out in the whole space, much alike the alien race in Arthur Clarke’s 2001: A Space Odyssey and in the spirit of Ray Kurzweil’s prediction11 that it is the fate of humanity to produce a superintelligent mind, whose com- putation will eventually consume the matter and energy of vast areas of the universe. Still no answer. Billions of years pass, AC has thought everything that was worthy of being thought, and there is only this last question remaining. Finally, AC DOI:10.1145/2667217 Yannis Papakonstantinou
- 2. JUNE 2015 | VOL. 58 | NO. 6 | COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM 37 viewpoints CCU and the Atheism-Creationism Debate Is there a Creator God? This old ques- tion recently underlies plenty of po- larized debates between biblical cre- ationists and new atheists. The CCU hypothesis bolsters a strongly agnostic position, in the middle between the two camps. Asimov makes it clear that AC is a God creator for its CCU—albeit a material God who is itself the product of evolution. Notice how the CCU hypothesis de- constructs classic arguments of the atheist camp. Biologist and atheist Richard Dawkins appeals to Occam’s Razor when he argues the probabil- ity of a creator is extremely small if everything can be explained without assuming a creator.6 Occam’s Razor is the heuristic according to which we should always make the fewest pos- sible assumptions when explaining phenomena.d Science lives by it. How- ever, the CCU hypothesis tells us that creators may emerge—they are not in- dependent assumptions. Hence, Oc- cam’s Razor does not prove very low probability of a creator. Similarly, the infinite regress argument (aka “turtles all the way down”9 ) fails: According to the CCU a creator, with the requisite computing ability, may emerge in a non-created universe. Darwin’s biological evolution boosted atheism by showing that the emergence of life and humans can be explained without positing a creator. Now computing calls us to ponder another kind of evolution, that of computation and mind, and the result is a boost to agnosticism, which can become a positive force. Vocal new atheist thought-leaders have unnecessarily coupled science with atheist assertions (for example, Dawkins6 ). Their dismissals of phi- losophy’s metaphysical questions are also frequent.3 A boost to rational ag- nosticism can remove the purported d Dawkins implicitly adopts a particular interpre- tation of Occam’s Razor: If assuming an entity is not necessary then the probability of its exis- tence is very low. Instead of this interpretation, one may adopt a purely methodological one (see survey in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Phi- losophy13 ). Nonetheless, this Viewpoint adopts Dawkins’ interpretation and shows that, even so, Dawkins’ use of Occam’s Razor does not lead to the very low probability conclusion. Is it possible AC has already hap- pened? Could you be one of the sen- tient beings in AC’s created computed universe? Created Computed Universes In 1964, the novel Simulacron 3,8 de- scribed a universe that is an elaborate computer simulation, yet it includes conscious beings. After abstracting away these stories’ details (such as AC’s reason for creating a universe) a plausible Created Computed Uni- verse (CCU) cosmological hypothesis emerges. Mind and computing play a key role in this cosmology, which unfolds in the following three steps: First, we know that mind happens in the cosmos, since we have already seen it happening in our universe. Second, we reasonably speculate that computing technology will enable mind to create CCUs. Then mind can happen in the CCUs as well.a There- fore our own universe may be a CCU, created by mind from its parent uni- verse. Note, the physics of a CCU (as perceived by the minds that inhabit it) may be different from the physics of its parent universe. Indeed, any parent universe physics is possible, as long as it enables the emergence of mind. In 1998, the blockbuster science- fiction movie The Matrix brought the CCU idea to the mainstream. In 2003, philosopher Nick Bostrom’s simulation argument2 posited that future civilizations may create CCUs that are simulating the times of their ancestors. Bostrom argued that one must accept one of the following three outcomes: ˲˲ Virtually all intelligent civilizations (self)destruct before becoming able to launch a simulated universe. ˲˲ Virtually all intelligent civilizations that can launch a simulated universe, choose not to. ˲˲ Almost definitely our universe is simulated, since a primary, non-simu- lated, intelligent universe can produce a vast number of created universes. a In a variant, AC designs a physical universe, whose essence is not part of AC’s mind. The differences between such a Created Physical Universe (CPU) hypothesis and the CCU hy- pothesis do not affect the main conclusions. CCU, Plato, and Descartes Is the CCU hypothesis just the computing era’s adaptation of a 2,500-year-long series of skeptical thought experiments on the nature of reality?b Plato’s Cave first suggested the true nature of reality may be much different than the perceived reality. 500 years ago Descartes, when he was not busy inventing Cartesian coordi- nates, was worried about an Evil Ge- nius. Descartes writes in the “Medita- tions on First Philosophy”: What do I really know about the nature of real- ity? My senses could be systematically deceived by an Evil Genius. What I see and what I hear may not be real but just what the Evil Genius feeds to my senses.c Some centuries later, the Ma- trix would become the computerized version of the Evil Genius. So, the CCU hypothesis appears similar to Plato’s Cave and Descartes’ Evil Genius: They all suggest there may be a deeper reality below the one we perceive. But there is also a key differ- ence, which is due to the CCU’s com- puting aspect: While until 1950 we would not assign a significant proba- bility to the existence of the Evil Genius (how did the Evil Genius happen?), we now must assign a significant prob- ability to being in a CCU since it ap- pears technologically possible. b Plato’s Cave and Descartes’ Evil Genius are two of the many thought-provoking classic ideas and topics the CCU naturally brings forward, along with Occam’s Razor, the sin- gularity, digital physics and others. As the author has evidenced at UC San Diego’s fresh- man seminar series “Computing and the Uni- verse,” the computing connection of the CCU makes these topics more approachable and exciting to students. c Descartes grew less worried when he discov- ered something that is definitely real: I think therefore I exist. Could you be one of the sentient beings in a created computed universe?
- 3. 38 COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM | JUNE 2015 | VOL. 58 | NO. 6 viewpoints ligence may have already emerged. In an era where pop cosmology books reg- ularly announce the latest explanation to everything under the sun, the CCU’s intractable mystery is a call to humil- ity. This may at first seem like a disap- pointment. Yet, the CCU holds its own awe, wonder, and inspiring messages. The unknown in the CCU is where its magic lies. It can restore the mysti- cal awe and wonder that you felt look- ing into a dark sky full of stars when you were a child. What is really out there? Unknown and mysterious possibilities. Most inspiringly, a cosmos where com- puting and mind are at the center. Imagine what is our place in this cosmos. We may be on the path to dei- fication by advancing our recently dis- covered computing technology. Or we may already exist in the thoughts and computations of an AC, as Asimov sug- gested. Or both. No matter what is your choice, remember the words of the great visionary Clarke:5 The truth will be far stranger. References 1. Asimov, I. The last question. Science Fiction Quarterly, 1956; http://www.thrivenotes.com/the-last-question/. 2. Bostrom, N. Are you living in a computer simulation. Philosophical Quarterly 53, 11 (2003), 243–255; http:// www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html. 3. Caroll, S. Physicists should stop saying silly things about philosophy; http://www.preposterousuniverse. com/blog/2014/06/23/physicists-should-stop-saying- silly-things-about-philosophy/. 4. Cerf, V. What if it’s us? Commun. ACM 57, 3 (Mar. 2014), 7. 5. Clarke, A. 2001: A Space Odyssey. New American Library, 1968. 6. Dawkins, R. The God Delusion. Bantam Books, 2006. 7. Fredkin, E. An introduction to digital philosophy. International Journal of Theoretical Physics 42, 2 (Feb. 2003). 8. Galouye, D. Simulacron-3. Phoenix Pick, 1964. 9. Hawking, S. A Brief History of Time. Bantam Books, 1998. 10. IEEE Spectrum. Special Report: The Singularity, 2008; http://spectrum.ieee.org/static/singularity. 11. Kurzweil, R. The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology. Penguin Books, 2005. 12. Rundle, M. Physicists may have evidence universe is a computer simulation, 2012; http://www. huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/10/11/physicists-may- have-evide_n_1957777.html. 13. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy “Simplicity”; http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/simplicity/. 14. Tegmark, M. Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality. Knopf, 2014. 15. Wolfram, S. A new kind of science. Wolfram Media, 2002. 16. Zuse, K. Calculating space. MIT Technical Translation AZT-70-164-GEMIT, http://www.mathrix.org/zenil/ ZuseCalculatingSpace-GermanZenil.pdf. Yannis Papakonstantinou (yannis@cs.ucsd.edu) is a professor of computer science and engineering at the University of California, San Diego. The author thanks Victor Vianu for his extensive comments and editing. Thanks also to the anonymous reviewers, and to Yannis Katsis, Lamprini Thoma, Menelaos Tzafalias, Vasilis Vassalos, and the students of UCSD’s “Computing and the Universe” seminar series for their many comments and suggestions. Finally, thanks to Moshe Vardi for the invitation to write this Viewpoint. Copyright held by author. science/metaphysics rift. Practically, once the theory of evolution (and not only) is no more involved into contest- ed metaphysical implications and de- bates, we can hopefully fully focus on its methodological value and teach it because it produces results. But are we bound to agnosticism? That is, are we bound to not knowing whether we are or not in a created uni- verse? How about doing some research on it instead? Are We in a CCU? Digital Physics and Reasons for a Universe When Konrad Zuse was not busy in- venting the first computers,5 he was speculating that the universe is a giant computer that continuously executes formal rules to compute its next state.16 Fredkin,7 Wolfram,15 and others further contributed on digital physics, which posits that the universe is digital in na- ture and computation makes it tick. However, the digital physics pro- ponents did not posit a creator of the universe’s computation. Nevertheless, the popular press tends to connect digi- tal physics and the CCU. For example, Rundle12 reports on the experiment that aims to discover if space and time come in tiny, discrete interacting pieces and considers it as evidence the universe is simulated on a digital computer. Al- thoughbeinginadigitaluniversewould lend more credence to the CCU hypoth- esis, it fails to clearly imply it. Zuse may be right even if we do not live in a CCU. Vice versa, a CCU need not have the telltale signs of the primitive computer simulations of the 21st century. If digital physics experiments are not much help in settling the CCU hy- pothesis, how else would we obtain hints? A favorite tactic is to second- guess whether someone who could be a universe creator would actually do it. Bostrom’s argument talks of simu- lations where the creators make uni- verses in order to simulate the times of their ancestors.2,e Vice versa, cos- mologist Max Tegmark argues that any e The students in UCSD’s “Computing and the Universe” freshman seminar have their own reasons for a CCU: Imagine a CCU created by an advanced AI civilization, which uploads to the CCU its young and growing-up AI minds to be trained and obtain experience. Or, imagine “reality TV” CCUs—think of the whole uni- verse as a massive Truman Show. superintelligence will withdraw in its own self-contemplation and stay out of universe creation.14,f A key problem with creator second- guessing is that it suffers from anthro- pomorphism, which ironically con- tradicts the assumption that a creator is a “superintelligent” mind. As IEEE Spectrum’s “Singularity” issue10 sum- marized, “[after the singularity] the intelligence of ours is no longer the apex of intelligence … Explaining [the world of a superintelligence] to one of us would be like trying to explain our world to a monkey.” Similarly, the rea- sons for which a superintelligence will or will not create CCUs are most likely incomprehensible by our thinking. For now, agnosticism is the only sure bet: we may be or may not be in a CCU and, if we are, the reasons are unknown.g Awe and Wonder for Our Place in the Universe Vinton Cerf inspires us by asking “what if it’s us?” who will populate and light the galaxy.4 Ray Kurzweil goes a step fur- ther: A superintelligent mind that will emerge in our merger with advanced computing will end up occupying the galaxy’smatterandenergywithitscom- putation.11 These are awesome and in- spiring visions of humanity practically reaching deification—via computing! The CCU hypothesis makes a simple reversal in the superintelligence time- line: The universe-creating superintel- f In the same vein, UCSD students (curiously, the vast majority female) believe that a superintelli- gence will not create a CCU, since evil and pain would probably be part of any non-trivial CCU. g However, the reasons for a CCU are not neces- sarily completely unknowable. A future bril- liant argument may predict past the singular- ity horizon. Furthermore, certain assumptions can change the probabilities. For example, an anonymous reviewer points out that if a cre- ator’s reasons for a CCU carry over to the cre- ated creators, then certain probabilities (for example, universes with no CCUs) decrease. Are we bound to not knowing whether we are or not in a created universe?