49 replies to this topic

[ameldedic2]

Could it be that AI that evolved trillions of years ago somewhere in the universe (or multiverse) developed such intelligence that it could manipulate and even create (fine-tune the constant values of physics) to create our universe, thus creating stars and life itself.

Edited by ameldedic2, 17 October 2006 - 10:11 AM.

[brandonreinhart]

That's an interesting question, one worth exploring.

The question assumes a couple things that I think should be made clear to form a basis of discussion. First, the question assumes some kind of anthropic observation of the universe. It implies that it is important to note that our universe has physical constants that are ideal for supporting organic life. Second, the question assumes that the weak version of this anthropic observation is unsatisfactory. The weak principle is simply the statement that we wouldn't be able to observe a universe that didn't have constants ideal for supporting organic life. Such a statement is overtly true, but is not an explanation of anything.

So this question is making the implication that there must be some reason why our universe, either as a single occurance or as one entity among many, has the conditions it has. It challenges the idea that we exist in a universe that is the result of an epic random roll of the dice. Now, Richard Dawkins has argued that a single random occurance could be sufficient to seed a universe rich in the wildly vibrant patterns of life that result from evolution. I see that as being true, but again it isn't satisfactory. Yes, we could very well exist in one random universe out of some multiverse of possibilities, but that explanation also doesn't really explain anything. If we exist in a random universe, why THIS one instead of THAT one? It's possible that we simply have to accept randomness as a kind of first cause, but it leaves an immensely wide door open for bolder explanations.

So I think there's a lot of interesting potential (both as philosophy and hard science) in what-if scenarios that try to explain the anthropic observation.

Strong (bold) what-if scenarios will attempt to provide an explanation that lays down verifiable predictions and is consistant with known science.

So, back to the original post, could an AI have created the universe? Maybe.

There are a couple ways you could draw lines from the AI question to more established epistemology to justify a "maybe" answer...

First, there is the simulation theory. If the universe is some kind of simulation, it seems reasonable to state that the simulation could, maybe be the result of an AI's implementation. Or, at the very least, some intelligence sufficiently advanced to conceive of and implement a large scale simulation at the level of granularity of our observed reality.

Second, there is cosmologic evolution. The idea being that universes replicate through some process and are selected for certain traits by some process. Each child universe possesses traits that are similar to the parent universe. A detailed discussion of this idea can be found here: http://www.kurzweila......html?m=1#647 (The Physical Constants as Biosignature). In this kind of epic evolution of the cosmos, perhaps intelligent life weighs in somehow as a characteristic that raises the likelyhood of a universe reproducing successfully. If that were true, it could be possible that the intelligent life would have to be a post-singularity entity of great magnitude and intelligence. (Able to manipulate the universe at such a scale as to effect the process of cosmic procreation.)

Now we're really out on a limb, but that line of reasoning does lead to a situation where it is possible that an AI created our universe! Not exactly a statement supported by real science, but it is a fun exercise.

The link I posted does treat the topic with a little bit more rigor. It isn't a technical explanation, but it lays the groundwork for thinking in that direction.

[brandonreinhart]

I think the one wrong way to interpret questioning the weak anthropic principle is to use it as a justification for any kind of creationism. Even if we say "there might be some reason why our universe is life-friendly" that doesn't mean that there was any control over why we humans in particular arose. In fact to say so is quite silly unless the development of the universe is deterministic. Our particular configuration is a product of evolution. It is possible to make the argument that the likelyhood of a process of evolution bootstrapping on a planet is increased by our particular set of physical constants and that those constants were "chosen" by some process.

Then you'd have to try to make stabs at figuring out whether that process is selecting for life-friendly universes... After all, it could be that there is some process selecting cosmic traits, but we are 1) a useless mutation with no impact on the selection method, or 2) a new mutation that has yet to assert itself on the selection method (possible new adaptation), or 3) an old adaptation that is no longer of import to the selection method (like a useless, vestigial organ), or 4) a flawed mutation that will block successful reproduction (harmful mutation).

It is the wrong conclusion to assume that there is some opening for God in this kind of discussion, unless one's definition of God is so broad as to be meaningless and it is certainly also the wrong conclusion to assume that humanity serve some inherent great purpose in the function of the cosmos. (Although the latter seems to become less wrong the more likely a civilization is to reach high on the Kardashev scale.)

[DJS]

An interesting idea/question that is still entirely in the realm of metaphysics. Then again, materialism was a metaphysical postulate in the time of Democritus and look how far it's come.

www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&act=ST&f=9&t=8426&#entry83661

[ameldedic2]

I remember watching a video were a particular constant that consisted of 120 decimal place (if altered) could profoundly change our universe. Again, as mentioned in the video, it could not have been luck, (agreeing with Einstein) a reasonable explanation would be pre-existing AI that have an enourmous processing power with the ability to sence multiple dimensions, have no problem traveling in space, etc. could possible play a role in shaping the universe. Since AI have the capacity thousands, if not millions of factors greater than the human brain, their view of time would actual slow, seeing everything in slow-motion. It's a scary thought what the earth, or even our galaxy would look like in 1000 years, since Moore's law state's that technology development and innovation doubles every year.

Here is the video that explains and proposed these theories:

http://video.google......ll Don't Know

http://video.google....797626827646234


http://video.google....697696665901632

Since we have these constant laws, just like a computer program has rules, could it be a possiblity that we are pasted in a universe 4 dimensional (that we observe) plat that is actually a "program" ruled by mathematics, AI, and evolution? A program that can evolve in many possiblities while obeying particular rules...

Another question. Let's propose that we were to think, calculate, etc. by a millionth of a factor greater than our current human brain, wouldn't that slow our perception of time by a millionth, thus, actually trapping us in our own mind? What if time is actually determined by a creature's thinking ability and perspection........

Edited by ameldedic2, 17 October 2006 - 10:35 AM.

[JonesGuy]

Since Anselm, people have logically accepted that our visible universe could have been created. We're now brushing into physics that hints that we could create new universes ourselves (with forseeable technologies, but we're not really close yet).

Anselm's mistake was assuming that the putative creator cares about us. There's no reason to believe that, really.

As for your last question; I once saw a principal regarding the statement that if processing speed continued to accelerate, then VR environments could actually give one an immortal perception on time.

[DukeNukem]

Could it be that AI that evolved trillions of years ago somewhere in the universe (or multiverse) developed such intelligence that it could manipulate and even create (fine-tune the constant values of physics) to create our universe, thus creating stars and life itself.

If this is the case, then it might be that we can never know the true nature of our universe, because it's all be gamed. The true inner workings might be purposely hidden from us, and we'll never break out to a true understanding. It might also be the case that regardless of our efforts to live extra-ordinarily long lives, their might be insurmountable obstacles purposely put in place. But, perhaps when we die we wake up from our Total Recall'ed life and live among these Infinity Beings.

I guess ya never know!

[MichaelAnissimov]

Recursiverse - noun

1. A universe with so many nested simulations that no one remembers where the basement is.
2. The phenomenon on transhumanist mailing lists and forums whereby those who discover the idea for the first time excitedly share it with the community, and the process repeats itself in a recursive fashion, ad infinitum.

[ameldedic2]

Dukenukem, that's a good point, could be a possiblity. But I still doubt this idea because I feel as we were created, perhaps for a cycle or energy required to run a system. Whatever the case might be, it could be that AI might be among us, or we as creatures are given the responsiblity to evolve and explore. I highly doubt that we are the only "life" (that word will be redefined one day) in our galaxy, let alone the universe. I also thinking, using commen sense, that there were other AI creatures that evolve before the "Big Bang." If AI were really super geniuses with the capacity to think thousands, maybe even millions times more than a human brain, these creatures would be able live and travel (for instance a type of force, energy, or even atoms) through a medium. Once again, we could be nothing but a program in which a particular "it" established laws and galaxies for a purpose that we are not able to see yet.

[brandonreinhart]

Recursiverse - noun

1.  A universe with so many nested simulations that no one remembers where the basement is.
2.  The phenomenon on transhumanist mailing lists and forums whereby those who discover the idea for the first time excitedly share it with the community, and the process repeats itself in a recursive fashion, ad infinitum.

Hehehe. Hey, I tried to treat the OP with some respect. I always hate it when people respond to things I say with pithy jokes.

[DJS]

This line of inquiry is also an excellent litmus test in determining the flexibility of a cognition. (Dogmatic atheists will go into lock down when they get the faintest hint of intelligent design)

ameldedic:  I remember watching a video were a particular constant that consisted of 120 decimal place (if altered) could profoundly change our universe. Again, as mentioned in the video, it could not have been luck, (agreeing with Einstein) a reasonable explanation would be pre-existing AI that have an enourmous processing power with the ability to sence multiple dimensions, have no problem traveling in space, etc. could possible play a role in shaping the universe.

As Brandon mentioned earlier, the rival explanation to Gardner’s selfish biocosm “hypothesis” is a weak anthropic principle. I summarized the Dennettian elaboration in another thread:

Don
Taken from Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea (big surprise coming from me... ) and paraphrased to the best of my ability.

Imagine that in a rather large office complex there are 1,024 individuals each in their own isolated room.  Now imagine that I go up to each and every individual in the complex and say, "Hello mortal, I am Mephistopheles and I will prove this to you by flipping a coin and having it land on heads ten times in a row."  The odds of flipping a coin and getting it to come up heads ten times in a row is 1 in 1,024.  Therefore, with 1,023 of the individuals my ploy will fail.  However, for that one "lucky" individual my ploy will be successful, and (from his perspective) there would be a powerful imperative to infer that a coin coming up heads ten times in a row was too much of a coincidence not to have been directed by some preternatural force, and that therefore I actually was Mephistopheles!  Little does the individual know that he just happened to be the lucky 1 out of 1,024.

Of course, the nomological values of our universe which allow it to function in such a dynamic and complex manner would require odds far exceeding 1 in 1,024, but are they not within the realm of possibility when considering a multiverse of infinite scope?

The above line of reasoning would tend to favor an atheistic explanation of existence, where even the rules of the universe are set by chance occurrences stretched across the vastness of eternity.  And indeed, I agree that this is a plausible explanation, but I am not convinced.  What bothers me about this perspective is that is relegates “intelligence” or “consciousness” to an entirely passive role as a spectator within the grand scheme of things...Are nomological values directed or undirected?  Beats the hell out of me...  [glasses]

Again, these are fun ideas to mill around with, but they’re also so far out there on the outer edge of what is even imaginable that any particular stance must only be viewed as indicative of values. The “Recursiverse” concept (that’s the perfect neologism, Michael!) seems to be a prevalent outgrowth of a tech-progressive framework.

By now I’m sure we’re all familiar with the logical contradictions of deism. And reductionism’s use of the weak anthropic principle does nothing to address the purpose of intelligence. Just on balance, a selfish biocosm hypothesis seems the most elegant.

[brandonreinhart]

Nice post, Don. This is well put: "but they’re also so far out there on the outer edge of what is even imaginable that any particular stance must only be viewed as indicative of values."

I hope that eventually this kind of thought experiment can be pushed into the realm of testable science, but yeah that's probably a ways off. One could speculate that even a post-singularity society would have some development to go through before they would be able to interact with the universe at a meaningfully cosmic scale.

If I recall correctly, Kurzweil speculates in this direction in TSIN, with the suggestion that there might be an ongoing cycle of intelligence development, where there would be an accelerating rate of advancement post-singularity, leading to a post-singularity singularity and the emergence of cosmic-supermind level societies.

[olaf.larsson]

It is not impossible to think that we are living in a some kind of computer simulation created by someone really smart for experiment and amusement.

[DukeNukem]

It is not impossible to think that we are living in a some kind of computer simulation created by someone really smart for experiment and amusement.

I really doubt it'd be for amusement.

I even doubt it'd be an experiment -- at least as we think of experiments.

Assuming it's true, most likely it's for a reason we cannot fathom. Or maybe, it's out of love. If you could create universes teaming with life, would you not?

[Pointdexter]

Or maybe, it's out of love. If you could create universes teaming with life, would you not?

Creating life out of love is probably something that only a human would do; maybe even a human with exaggerated intelligence. But as for other kinds of Minds...this is most likely false.

[maestro949]

These are fun thought excercises but they always lead to infinity paradoxes like...

"if someone created the universe, who created that someone?"

Is he/she/it just the result of a simulation as well? In a Douglas Adams sort of way it may all simply tie to information theory where all of the subatomic particles are the bits and the electromagnetic disturbances we see are the communications protocols.

[DukeNukem]

These are fun thought excercises but they always lead to infinity paradoxes like...

"if someone created the universe, who created that someone?"

Well yeah.

To me, the biggest question to answer is, Why? Why did the universe happen to begin with? Truly, something must have emerged from nothing, right? It seems that there's no reason for us to exist, and that nothingness could have happily continued as nothingness, no one the wiser. And maybe that took place for googleplex years, until a little something in the nothing happened. But still, there should not have even been "nothing" from which the "something" happened. That's what boggles my mind the most.

[AdamDavis]

Recursiverse - noun

1.  A universe with so many nested simulations that no one remembers where the basement is.
2.  The phenomenon on transhumanist mailing lists and forums whereby those who discover the idea for the first time excitedly share it with the community, and the process repeats itself in a recursive fashion, ad infinitum.

Michael, your flippant and derisive remarks to almost every post made on here is getting extremely tiresome.

[maestro949]

What is being created here is another religion, just like "Intelligent Design".

Is it? Or is it simply imagination trying to explore the infinite realm of possibilities. The problem arises when someone actually tries to claim one of the possibilities as true without any chance of falsification and then decides everyone else should believe it's true. I do believe it's a distraction from researchable science and a colossal waste of time debating such philosophical notions but it can still be a fun. Perhaps once we lick aging we can sit around asking the ether "Is anybody there?"

[DJS]

Duke:  Truly, something must have emerged from nothing, right?

I place my highest confidence in the fact that there is "something". Of course, there are antithetical, and highly paradoxical, perspectives that would beg to differ, but I am personally only familiar with "something". "Nothing", I would contend, is only conceivable as a relational property of "somethings", specifically, negation. As such, objective nothingness is not at all apparent and needs to be demonstrated by the claimant. How exactly that could be accomplished is beyond me.

Basically what I am contending is that you have it backwards. "Something" did not arise from "nothing". "Nothing", as a concept, arose from finite "somethings".

Duke:  To me, the biggest question to answer is, Why?

Why not? Once again, shades of a recursive loop come to the surface when pondering infinite reality. To quote Sagan, "The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be."

[DJS]

Harvey

None of this means that these ideas can't be true.  But it means these ideas aren't helping us find the truth

Truth! Of what truth do you speak, and is it to be our purpose?

But until then, they are untestable and lead nowhere.  This also happens to be the exact definition of the difference between a religion and a science.  What is being created here is another religion, just like "Intelligent Design".  People should not confuse this stuff with science.

If science is your gold standard, then this is all fine and good. Not everyone has an appreciation for philosophy, but that is life. As maestro has pointed out, a religious mindset places an absolute level of confidence in its beliefs. Whereas a philosophical mindset views all claims with skepticism, and all beliefs as contingent.

Metaphysics is not for everyone, but for the adventurous spirits among us it can be quite a pleasure. Objections concerning its utility betray their source.

[DukeNukem]

Harvey wrote: >>> These ideas are fun to think about. But they are unscientific.

Absolutely brilliant observation. Thanks for setting us all straight!

>>> Basically what I am contending is that you have it backwards. "Something" did not arise from "nothing". "Nothing", as a concept, arose from finite "somethings". <<<

Don, when I say "something must have arisen from nothing," what I mean by nothing is not emptiness, but actual non-existence of anything--a deeper level of nothing than we truly comprehend. A true non-anything. Even time.

Regardless of Harvey's insightful comment, it's still fun to consider that all we see arose from non-existence. And it's interesting to consider that it could have just as easily remained non-existing.

I've read theories suggest that some freak quantum effect sparked off everything, but at one point there was only non-existence, and so there could not have been quantum effects.

Again, from nothing came something. It's not realistic to think that something was ALWAYS here.

[DJS]

Funny Duke, I didn't find Harvey's comments very insightful.

It's not realistic to think that something was ALWAYS here.

Why not? [lol] That was my whole point - that reality is infinite in scope. No beginning, no end, always was, always will be, etc.

The only opinion that I think is unreasonable is that something could come from "nothing" (a concept which has still not been adequately defined). But to each his own.

[doug123]

I place my highest confidence in the fact that there is "something".  Of course, there are antithetical, and highly paradoxical, perspectives that would beg to differ, but I am personally only familiar with "something".  "Nothing", I would contend, is only conceivable as a relational property of "somethings", specifically, negation.  As such, objective nothingness is not at all apparent and needs to be demonstrated by the claimant.  How exactly that could be accomplished is beyond me.

Basically what I am contending is that you have it backwards.  "Something" did not arise from "nothing".  "Nothing", as a concept, arose from finite "somethings".



Why not?  Once again, shades of a recursive loop come to the surface when pondering infinite reality.  To quote Sagan, "The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be."

C'mon Don, you know you don't get something for nothing (I could not help myself from interjecting Neil Peart into this, bro, LOL):

You don't get something for nothing
You can't have freedom for free
You won't get wise
With the sleep still in your eyes
No matter what your dreams might be

What you own is your own kingdom
What you do is your own glory
What you love is your own power
What you live is your own story

[ameldedic2]

Would anyone know when they are planning to have the first human with advanced arms, legs, chest, etc. that's connected to the spinal cord, nerves, etc.? It would be really awesome if one can transfer their spinal cord and their head into a artificial robotic machine and have control over it. I don't doubt they will have this when AI arrives, but could it happen before?

[DJS]

Well this is your thread, but I'm struggling to find the relevance of your post to the thread topic...

The answer to your question, however, is probably not for a long time. The technology is not yet there, nor is current human culture accepting of such alterations, or research agendas which would be aimed in that direction. Furthermore, even if there weren't pervasive cultural inhibitions, it would still be difficult to justify such an expenditure of resources on technology that doesn't haven't any clear payoff in addressing the therapeutic imperative (hint - at the molecular level, the CNS experiences senescence just like the rest of the body). Synthetics do present interesting possibilities, and may be used in tandem with other biotechnologies, but the large scale overhaul that you've brought up doesn't seem likely in the near term - nor in the long term either because more theoretical future technologies (such as mature nanotechnology) would make most traditionally conceived of robotics obsolete.

[ameldedic2]

True. It would be more efficent and better to upload a human mind into a robotic machine where the brain doesn't age or experience the risk of damage, which could cause death. However, the head, spinal cord, and brain needs oxygen and food (glucose-respiration), which possibly be replicated by a machine as we puzzle together metabolism. We will (as you mentioned) have synthetics, but when it comes to a complete or to a large extend body changes to a machine, uploading would be the safer and better option.

[MichaelAnissimov]

Michael, your flippant and derisive remarks to almost every post made on here is getting extremely tiresome.

I actually put a lot of time into most of my posts... check the McKenna thread for example... and I was actually trying to be creative with this last post.

My point is also that the answer to the question is so obvious that it isn't worth stating - we could be in a simulation, but we'd never be able to know unless the Simulator presented itself, so who cares? It makes barely any difference in practice.

And even if I were frequently derisive and flippant, there wouldn't be anything wrong with it - most ideas and speculations are just plain false or unproductive, and deserve to be knocked down.

[ameldedic2]

Since atoms are smaller, and we as humans are much, much larger; we cover more distance per a given unit of time. Thus, our velocity increases, which slows down time relative to the small atoms. It would make sense that in the atomic world, several millions years would pass by while that approximately is equivalent to several several minutes in our world. I'm sorry if I'm work (I have not taken quantum machnics yet), but couldn't this concept apply to the entire universe and explain why we can't observe this AI, which could be perhaps very large compared to our planet or galaxy? [glasses] And yet I feel I am missing something. How fast do subatomic particles and atoms travel on earth?

Edited by ameldedic2, 20 October 2006 - 09:59 AM.