It was recently announced, by actual physicists with degrees and jobs, that there is evidence the universe might be a giant computer simulation.
Not only that - but they now think they can test for sure whether or not it is, quite soon.
This would clearly be excellent news.
Before we get onto why I believe that, let's dip our toes into the science. Or, rather, philosophy. For as it turns out, the idea of the Matrix-Made-Real (aka The Digiverse, aka The Hyper-Global Compu Mega Net) stems not from the world of sci-fi, or indeed sci-sci, but instead a rather simple thought experiment, which goes something like this:
"We can already create simulations of small universes. If it is possible to create an identical simulation of a universe the size of our own, we will eventually do it. Since are probably not alone in this own vast, unknowable universe, it's likely already been done. If so, it's probably being done all the time. If so, again, the number of simulations would necessarily be vastly bigger than the one true universe from which they all originate. Therefore, statistically we probably live in one of the simulations."
... which is all very speculative and pleasant. But now scientists have evidence there's more to it than that. Explaining exactly what they've found is tricky, but it essentially has something to do with finding similar built-in limits for the energies of various cosmic waves in both the simulations and the world as it exists. Sort of like looking really closely at atoms through a microscope, and finding little Apple logos on them.
Now, over at HuffPost UK Tech this idea has proven to be something of a sensation. Our two posts on the news have now been shared more than 100,000 times on Facebook, have received thousands of comments and driven our Google ranking absolutely bonkers, making it by some margin among our most popular topics of the year.
But amid all the enthusiasm, scepticism and denial that greeted the news, one reaction above all seemed to be repeated most often: "this is amazing - but I hope it isn't true".
This is, I believe, the wrong attitude.
For one thing, discovering the universe was a computer would also mean the end of death, since there would also be no life of which it would be worth speaking. This is a significant improvement on life as we find it today.
Secondly, in this model of the world, the odds of cosmic programmer or, if you like, "God", actually existing go up dramatically.
Yes, in our cold, random existence, the idea of a loving deity seems increasingly remote. But in a simulation universe it would be indisputable that someone had to get a coffee, hammer at the keyboard and press "run".
Admittedly this is more likely to be some strange, alien nerd with a trans-existential Commodore 64, and not the bearded deity we usually imagine, but it's still a comforting thought.
The birth of God and the death of death? Not bad so far. Here are some other benefits to the universe as computer:
True, discovering that the universe is a simulation would also create some problems. But I think most of these can be carefully worked around, dealt with or - at worst - ignored.
Would it make life pointless? I don't think so. Day to day our perception of life wouldn't change. We would pay our taxes. We would fall in love. We'd even still buy iPads. We'd feel silly about it. But we'd do it.
On a sinister level, many would fear that living in a computer would open up the possibility of a vast digital virus wiping out all of existence in an instant. Other more prosaic issues - like somebody in our creator's universe tripping on the power plug, forgetting to pay their electricity bill or accidentally pressing "delete" instead of "save" - would also be concerns.
But in the context of the ridiculous number of ways in which our world could end already, these are pretty quick and clean ways of it happening. Plus, we wouldn't know about it anyway if it did occur. Once again, this is a bonus when all things are considered.
Others have also expressed their fear that in discovering our universe really was a computer, our existence would lose its mystery, its majesty and its complexity.
It is with this that I take particular exception.
Our universe as it stands now is a random, dark and complex place, filled with unknowns and chance. For all the efforts by world religions and the more dogmatic type of scientist, there remain no answers as to why we exist, when we will die and the mechanisms by which we came to be. Our best guess, currently, is that we are the random outcome of a physical fluke and a subsequent 13 billion years of cosmic pinball.
But let us suppose, for a moment, that we are both all those things and more. That we are the random outcome of chance, but also the newest link in a wide network of digital creators, each realising their own technologies to the point where they can take part in an act of supreme artistic wonder. That we aren't just the work of a distant, invisible creator - but also their inheritors, and that our destiny isn't just to survive as long as we can in the wastes of deep space, but to spark new forms of matter and life into being.
This would clearly be very cool. And given the trajectory of modern technology, eventually commercially available in app form.
So yes, we may be living in a computer. Our lives may be played out on a mainframe and not the universe we thought we knew. It is even possible that somewhere outside our matrix Keanu Reeves is fighting to wake us up for some porridge and certain death.
But if we are? Like all of science, from evolution to quantum theory, I believe the knowledge would add value to our lives, not subtract meaning from it.
That said, next time you turn off your Xbox, spare a thought for those inside. You never know - billions of tiny lives might depend on it.
Follow Michael Rundle on Twitter: www.twitter.com/michaelrundle
Leigh Clark: How to Be Facebook Famous in 11 Simple Steps
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0139809/
We assume that computers and computer simulations will eventually be powerful and sophisticated enough to run 'artificial' universes which are as complex as a 'real' universe. This is based on Moore's law which states that the number of transistors on integrated circuits doubles approximately every two years; speed and memory are also improving at exponential rates. However, we cannot assume that Moore's law will hold true for ever. Some, such as Michio Kaku, believe that it will become obsolete within ten years because of the limitations of working with silicon - microchips smaller than 5 nanometres will simply overheat. It is not, therefore, inevitable that computers will ever be powerful enough for a universe-size simulation.
Another thing to consider is the use of such simulations. We generally use them to predict the future, which means that the knowledge which could be obtained from observing us at our current level of technological advancement would be limited at best, since whoever was running the simulation must necessarily be far ahead of us.
Or the simulation we are living in is vastly speeded up. That means that the simulating computer must be able to create a simulated computer vastly more powerful than itself which is logically impossible.
l also think that a lot of confusion/misconception surrounds the perception of the word "God". ls " he" really an old man with a white beard and mysterious ways, controlling our destiny? Or do more people see "him" as a force , or form, of energy, intelligence and organisation which is intrinsic in and the essence of, everything?
What we call it is irrelevant --- it is what it is, and to me it seems more like a process in action than a person, to which all living things can connect, through thought, prayer ect, in fact one huge mass of universal consciousness, which, as scientists do not reall know where exactly consciousness resides ie, only in the brain ---- l don`t think so -- is as good a hypothesis as any.
l hope my views have given some food for thought as l know the very difficult and ultimate search, by myself and others as well as scientists worldwide,is for the "Truth". However l know that "truth" is relative but l also hope it is universal and conclusive. ( one day! )
l hope you like it. Almost every time l read an article on any aspect of science, including the formation of the universe l also read that most scientists deny the existence of a God
Although l, like you, am not religious, believing that religions cause all the suffering and wars in this world, because people are not intelligent or mature enough to agree to differ on matters of belief, l certainly acknowledge, not believe, that for the universe and everything contained in it to have evolved and to exist in its present form, that there must be an intelligent, organising force at work and l am sure that all scientists would agree with that.
lt seems to me as a non scientific but intelligent human being that either this force is A, outside of everything, controlling, organising, regulating ect, with accuracy and intelligence, an external "God" if you like, or B, is within every particle of every piece of matter as its intrinsic, organising principle ie. the essence of everything, self regulating.
One could make a comparison with a computer. l don`t think anyone who knows how it works would say that there was no designer or someone who input information. lf, hypothetically, that was proved not to be the case, then people would look at the possibility that the computer was self-organising and intelligent.
But like l said in my comment and l quote, it has to be one or the other, my personal view is that it is a process, in other words, intrinsic in, --- but can be personally reached too, as everthing in the process is interconnected.
Quote --
" l certainly acknowledge, not believe, that for the universe and everything contained in it to have evolved and to exist in its present form, that there must be an intelligent, organising force at work and l am sure that all scientists would agree with that.
lt seems to me as a non scientific but intelligent human being that either this force is A, outside of everything, controlling, organising, regulating ect, with accuracy and intelligence, an external "God" if you like, or B, is within every particle of every piece of matter as its intrinsic, organising principle ie. the essence of everything, self regulating.
One could make a comparison with a computer. l don`t think anyone who knows how it works would say that there was no designer or someone who input information. lf, hypothetically, that was proved not to be the case, then people would look at the possibility that the computer was self-organising and intelligent.
lt may not be that good a comparison but l think that you get the "gist" ( idea) of it --- it can only be one or the other --- it has to be.
l wrote a letter to someone about 5 years ago, on the nature of God, what peoples` perceptions of God were, and you`d be surprised how many didn`t have a very clear idea!
My view is laid out in the following letter. lt is MY view and,
as science stands at the moment it is a VIEWPOINT, A BELIEF, NOT A FACT, and l would like people who reply to respect that, as l respect others` viewpoints!
Hallo,
l was interested to hear that you do not believe in religion, but l wondered if you believe in a higher power, a God or by whichever name you want to call it ie , cosmic consciousness/intelligence or simply a process. l actually write poetry and have had 5 published in various anthologies, but l can only write when l feel inspired. l hope you don`t mind but l`d like to share one of them with you.
This is it:
There is no Division.
There is no division
between science and religion
Either there is an external God,
who created everything,
Or an internal force
of pure consciousness,
intelligence, energy and organisation.
This internal force
resides within every atom,
Regulating and organising
with accuracy and intelligence,
And is the outward manifestation
Of a divine force or God.
Strange, is it not? That of the myriads who
Before us passed the door of darkness through
Not one returns to tell us of the road
Which to discover we must travel to
And this inverted bowl we call the sky
Where under crawling coop't we live and die,
Lift not they hands to it foe help- for it
Rolls impotently on as Thou or I.
The moving finger write; and having writ
Moves on: nor all thy piety nor wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a line ,
Nor all thy tears wash out a word of it
IT's the MICE Experiment didn't you read Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy
so what your saying (correct me if im wrong)
because hours of playing computers and such will lead to a decrease in social skills,its better to keep em playing than educate them.We already done/doing this with gods.
and test results reveal it will sux --not only sux,it will sux hard.
nah i take the i rather live a day on my feet ,than a lifetime on ma knees :)
Re: 21st Frightfulness. Last minute crowd-sourced payment of overdue utility bill successful.
“they can test for sure whether or not it is”
by applying modified Turing methodology?
“the world of sci-fi”
Or rather a sci-fi world, wouldn’t need to be fettered by mundane rules. Consequently such a ’world’ could operate in the fashion of Hogwarts.
"We can already create simulations of small universes”
Thus this might be a simulation, within a simulation, within a simulation, etcetera. All the way down, to whatever isn‘t at the bottom?
“this idea has proven to be something of a sensation”
Especially if it turns out we can rewrite our own coding from within the program. Or in layman’s terms: Get our act together, and debug ourselves.
“discovering the universe was a computer would also mean the end of death”
Do the entities in games not played any more, know about this?
“the odds of cosmic programmer or, if you like, "God", actually existing go up dramatically”
Until we devise computers that can do their own programming. Then this new narrative of ours gets rewritten too.
“in a simulation universe it would be indisputable that someone had to”
function in a form advocated by the characters inside the simulation? And Dog created god, in its own mirror image.
“The birth of God and the death of death? Not bad so far. “
For a designer religion.
“our destiny”
could be a function of longevity.
Therefore how can I simply be something programmed with-in a computer? If anything, what we can call "God" must be what dwells in us, and in everything living, perhaps even beyond us and the scope of any instrument we will ever create. Let us create, but let us not fool ourselves from what we are: alive.