Concepts from the novel 'Infinite Thunder'
link: http://www.lulu.com/content/429825

 

Beyond the limits of ignorance
Anyone who hopes that science will provide a final 'theory of everything' is going to be disappointed.
Perhaps it can't happen. The universe is infinitely complex. The more we learn, the less we know we know.
While humans can only understand a negligible fraction of reality, it may be possible to rule out most current speculations.
The closest approximation to the ultimate truth would be the most alien thought humans could have. Good or bad, it might seem fundamentally random.
Alternatively, all the unknowns might balance out: existence could turn out to be completely meaningless in every way.

  It's still a mystery how humans become aware of their own existence, let alone of the universe as a whole.
It's not a logical process. Even the smartest people won't ask the most important questions listed below, perhaps because they're too disturbing.
Anthropic philosophy is about anomalies so obvious that almost no one notices them directly, though they influence all hidden biases. They also have major ethical implications.
For instance, is humanity a representative sample of intelligence, or are we vastly different from almost all other minds that exist? If so is it possible to escape our limited subset of reality?
We're undeniably special: of all possible intelligent minds, ours are just about the smallest.

 

Information theory: 'It From Bit'
Ideally, a 'universal theory' should be as simple as possible, with the minimum number of required elements.
It's easy to create complex structures using very simple rules. All we need are one and zero systematically combined in every possible way, to create all the natural numbers. In a sense they're already 'out there'. Only the rules have to be defined.
If reality is math, existence may be equivalent to the set of all numbers. Ultimately nothing exists except the logical rules that created the numbers and the patterns they form; which of course include the rules themselves.
Existence evolved in stages like a computer program, as explained in the philosophical works of the 'high-IQ bouncer' Christopher Michael Langan. Large numbers have enough internal complexity to be interpreted as instructions.
Perhaps this method can't create all possible entities (like transfinite numbers), but it could create more advanced logical systems that would begin to do the job.
  Numbers barely exist, if at all. If minds are merely the outcome of imaginary equations, why do we feel so 'real'?
The universe is the ultimate illusion, the only thing that can exist.

 

Creation Equations
The laws of physics are software. None of the particles and forces are fundamentally real. They're merely large numbers interpreted as objects.
  Many huge numbers (virtually all of them in fact) describe the content and evolution of entire universes by themselves.
Others could be read as open-ended equations capable of generating new numbers, that could in turn be interpreted as universes. With enough patience, consistently applied instructions could generate all of space and time.
Not all equations are equal. The more interesting ones are self-referential, or can generate new equations. The superstring manifolds that may define space/time are too complicated for humans to solve, even at the simplest levels, but can only be approximated.
After just a few levels, the logic transcends all human understanding.
  Related universe equations may have many solutions in common. Those with the most in common (not necessarily the simplest ones) may interfere to generate even more universes.
Since almost all numbers are completely random (being their own shortest descriptions), most universes may be the result of second-order (or higher) processes, the outcomes of different equations interacting on a higher, even more virtual level.

 

Five dimensional time:
A higher-level derivative of many ordinary parallel timelines. The number of consistent 5D 'slices' through parallel universes could be much larger than the number of ordinary 4D timelines. If we live in 5D-time, the laws of physics could change unpredictably.

 

Parallel universes
One thing is clear: our universe is not representative of existence in general. There are an unlimited number of possible universes different than ours, almost all of them much stranger. Average may not even exist.
The most easily created and perhaps most common universes are much smaller and simpler than ours, but they also contain far fewer observers.
At our level, there are many possible arrangements of physical laws, some more elaborate than others. Our local solution is probably a relatively simple compromise, with an infinitely complex future.

 

Unity Speculation
Repeated endlessly throughout reality, there exist unlimited copies of everyone who has ever lived, in all imaginable and implausible circumstances. Near-copies of everyone alive have already made every mistake.
They're vastly outnumbered by other beings whom we could never imagine or understand.
The differences increase in all possible ways, until nothing recognizable remains.

  With the Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, Everett popularized a strange notion: minds can be in infinitely many places at once, yet still remain one mind.
Consciousness can be shared by very different brains in very different locations, provided their mind patterns are identical.
Spanning time and space, our awareness is the sum of all our mind-copies in all realities, merged into one single perception.

  How many ways could an amount of matter with the mass of a human brain be arranged?
Imagine a small checkerboard with only four fields, which can be either black or white. There are 16 possible board color arrangements (two to the fourth power). An arrangement of all possible checkerboards with ten fields to a side (two to the hundredth power) would already cover the Solar System! And the number of possible states increases rapidly from there.
The number of possible human thoughts is too vast to begin to imagine, but compared to infinity it might as well be zero.

  Randomly searching all chaotic systems, we could expect to find an infinite number of patterns representing our minds, in part or in full, created purely by chance.
Since each human mind would be part of any random pattern of sufficient size (including almost all Real numbers), each mind can be regarded as a finite fraction of reality, since it's regularly repeated almost everywhere.
(Its percentage, roughly speaking, is one divided by x, where x = two raised to the relevant mind size in bits (x is also the number of theoretically possible brain states), or: 1 / 2^10^18, or less.) Since there are trillions of mental states in each lifetime, and some simple thoughts require far fewer bits, your actual percentage of reality may be even higher.

  Each of us is very important, or at least highly relevant in the grand scheme of things, but only because we are so simple.
Compared to any random infinite number, each finite mind forms a very large fraction of reality, effectively approaching unity (though still a vastly smaller fraction than any human can imagine).
As internally organized natural numbers, our minds may be more likely to appear in calculations used by higher minds. For most calculations, we're probably too simple.

  If our minds are a common but highly biased sample of reality, what has 'selected' us from all there is and could be? It can't be any finite statistical process.
Simply by existing, we can know something about the highest level of reality, the sum of all truths, including facts that could never be proven by finite math or logic. The great philosopher Alan Turing called this Oracular knowledge.
Based on our own existence, we already 'know' there are infinitely more smaller, simpler minds than larger ones. Most minds also live in rational universes.
Additional statistical laws may be empirically derived for all reality. This will be the closest thing to magic imaginable.

---

The Four Paradoxes: Why are we here?

Paradox 1)

- Why does the world appear to be consistent, when there are many more ways it could appear random?
If anything, there's too much order around us, both in our minds and in the universe they perceive. Do we really need all the laws of physics? Particles of the same type (and the forces controlling them) are completely identical down to the tenth decimal place. The best guess I could find is that the different force ratios (like the relative strengths of gravity and the weak nuclear force) are ordinary rational numbers hidden by relativistic processes.
Arguably, our universe should have no laws whatsoever.
There should be many more 'surreal' perception streams, in which events happen for no reason, than our highly predictable reality. Our perceptions should be like mental static, self-organizing into meaningless insights.
This tireless consistency suggests we inhabit a fully realized, 'authentic' universe existing outside ourselves. Not every mind is necessarily a part of a larger system, but most are.
It may be easier for an equation to create entire universes than to precisely describe one mind, but the former can create many of the latter.
Consistent universes are easier to generate from simple mathematical rules, so there are many more of them.

 

Paradox 2)

- Why do we live near the beginning of time, if the future is going to be infinite?
If human descendants are going to survive for another hundred billion years or more, why are we 'lucky' enough to live this close to the dawn of civilization? Any average observer should be the end result of many eons of history, long after mankind has spread through the observable universe.
One response is called 'Doom Soon': humanity is likely to commit mass suicide in the near future. There simply is no long-term future.
Another possibility is that new universes are constantly being generated from existing ones by natural methods we can't begin to measure or calculate, both physical and philosophical. These new universes then generate universes of their own in a never-ending multiplication.
For each universe that has attained a certain age, there will be many more younger ones, so most observers are likely to exist near the dawn of their universe.

 

Paradox 3)

- Why are human minds so small, when a randomly selected memory size should most likely be infinite?
Many numbers also describe minds. Each mind is equivalent to many numbers.
Any random mind (selected from all possible minds) has a corresponding random number (selected from all possible numbers), which statistically should be infinite.
Human minds, however, could hardly be much smaller and still continue to function. Even a 50% reduction would collapse civilization as we know it. We're just barely intelligent enough to realize this fact.
The fact that apparently we are NOT infinite, again suggests that the smallest minds are easily copied throughout reality, greatly outnumbering the larger ones.
  Alternatively, reality itself may be limited, and there actually is a 'highest' number, beyond which nothing exists. Our universe could be an inexplicable exception in an endless void, nothing emerging from nothing.
  Most infinite minds, if they exist, should be very poorly organized. Beyond a certain mind size, they may not be unified in any meaningful way, but only very loosely integrated.
Nonetheless, portions of these minds would still be mathematically perfect. Omniscient but not omnipotent, they would understand all finite systems perfectly, and know each of us as well as any finite number. If they exist, we all have 'virtual fan clubs' that we can't begin to imagine, or unfortunately interact with.

 

Paradox 4)

The Greatest Mystery
- Why is our highly predictable, understandable universe still vastly more complicated than necessary to generate human minds?
Some things are too obvious to notice. Einstein said the strangest thing about the universe is that we can understand it at all. The laws of physics are indeed comprehensible, but the universe they create is needlessly elaborate.
It would be an understatement to say the details of all physical systems are incredibly complex. An insane number of unnecessary interactions happen while no one is watching.
Minutely detailed superstrings (or something even stranger) form virtual particles that fill the cores of stars and empty space. From a tiny string's perspective, a human and a galaxy are basically the same size. There's 'wasted space' between galaxies and inside ordinary particles: Moving randomly at close to the speed of light, it could take a centillion centillion years for the quarks trapped inside an ordinary proton to approach each other closely enough to form a small black hole that would immediately evaporate, but virtual particles can instantly find each other by taking all possible paths at once. That's also how a photon maintains a perfectly straight path across any distance.
The information content of all human minds fades into insignificance compared to non-living matter. Neutrons are vastly smaller than neurons, but unlike the latter, they can't be accurately simulated by any supercomputer. Each fundamental particle may be as complex as the whole universe.
At the atomic scale, it would be harder to precisely describe a speck of dust than the thoughts of all the human beings who ever lived. Electrons orbit a nucleus more times per second than the age of the universe in seconds, buffeted by a storm of virtual and real interactions. Constant molecular action is required to hold all objects together. We can't sense them, but these interactions are as real as our own thoughts - more so in fact.
The classical complexities are further multiplied by quantum mechanics. No one can calculate the virtual gravitons surrounding a single virtual graviton for even a picosecond. Every particle exists in many simultaneous states. In quantum computing, the superimposed states of a single superstring can be more complex than an atomic-level map of the observable universe.
Our universe could be much simpler, yet still allow our type of intelligent life to flourish without any measurable difference. Shouldn't simple universes, barely complex enough to generate human minds, be in the majority, since they are computationally easier to generate?
Not necessarily.

  ~The Greatest Mystery: theory one
Since the universe doesn't necessarily depend on its inhabitants to exist, it can be however strange it wants to be. If something has to exist, why shouldn't it be almost infinite in some ways, almost empty in others? This universe's complexity might be a middle ground between possible extremes.
  The apparent complexity could also be an illusion caused by flawed understanding. Maybe there's a much simpler description waiting to be discovered. Chaos theory, fluid dynamics, and statistical equations describing entire stars could eliminate some of the intricacies.
Simple equations can rapidly lead to unlimited complexity. A well known example is the decimal expansion of Pi. Fractals are also an inexhaustible source of patterns, with recurring forms at all scales. Most of our universe's complexity probably derives from simple algorithms. An equation generating all possible patterns would make an interesting diagram when zooming out from the origin. Whether it would visually repeat itself depends on the ultimate nature of reality.
While elaborate, our universe has explored only a negligible fraction of possible states. Maybe it's trying to generate as many patterns as possible.
The abundant interactions might also end when no one is looking, like in the non-active portions of a videogame. In that case, the interior of the sun and the earth would have a much simplified quantum state. The atoms wouldn't even have separate identities, but would be represented as a group. Crystals brought up from the earth's mantle should be more regular than expected (this however does not appear to be the case. Even the interiors of Mars rocks scanned by robot probes are just as elaborate as Earth rocks). Our weather could turn out to be unexpectedly predictable, with hidden regularities. Old photos may even reveal identical clouds. This solution becomes less likely the more we learn about nature.

  ~The Greatest Mystery: theory two
Perhaps the excessive complexity is shared with other universes.
According to a popular quantum interpretation, the universe is constantly splitting into slightly different versions of itself, the changes rippling outward from each subatomic interaction. Many possibilities are realized in parallel timestreams, and sometimes allowed to interfere. As random information is created inside each new universe, its past is steadily erased to make room.
What we see is only a tiny portion of a much larger process. A single particle can be part of many different universes at once.
Unlike the purely theoretical universes described earlier, there is indirect evidence for this theory, but it remains controversial, and just as unprovable as the other speculations on this page.
Most diverging time/space streams never cross paths again, but those regions that remain identical, or become identical again, could be shared by many universes, thereby easing the computational workload.
In that case, the complexity isn't wasted, but maximally compressed. It only needs to be calculated once, and can be reused as often as needed. Each electron (and every other elementary particle) is merely a link to the first (and only) electron created in the Big Bang. Or the first Calabi-Yau manifold, if such a thing exists.
-Mathematically, quantum physics may be the most effective method. Complex equations often have many solutions. They could also create many universes.
-Reality creates uncountable copies of every mind. By their very nature, quantum universes create more copies than classical universes. In the latter, the laws of physics are indeed somewhat simpler, but the payoff is vastly smaller.

  ~The Greatest Mystery: theory three
All the 'wasted' detail inside our reality could further multiply our mind patterns. Though it isn't apparent, our thoughts may change and organize the surrounding chaos in all directions.
A coarse grid (brain cells) made of many fine grids (atoms), the ever-changing structures of our brains are constantly rearranging the configurations of all the particles around them, which may 'mirror' and vastly multiply our brain patterns. If a pattern can be aware merely by existing, that pattern accidentally duplicated on a vast scale will create even more awareness. Chaotically imprinting itself upon the surrounding collisions and interactions will dramatically increase the pattern's frequency, and thus the probability of its existence. Our most ephemeral brain patterns are precisely imprinted in the atmosphere, the Earth itself, and most of all Earth's undetectable gravity waves, rippling outward at the speed of light.
This may be the main reason we find ourselves in a complex quantum universe.

---

 

The anthropic principle: experimental evidence

Is there a way to test these theories? Could the laws of physics be predicted from first principles?
If many universes exist, our universe isn't necessarily special. Aspects of reality should be arbitrary instead of meaningful, but our patterns are far more common than most other minds' patterns.

 

Test one: The principle of abundance

The laws of physics should maximize the number of self-aware patterns.
-It should be easy for intelligent life to evolve in our universe.
-The complexity of the universe should amplify top-level patterns (human brain configurations).
There should be no hidden levels that only occasionally interact with macroscopic objects. Neutrinos, gravitons, dark matter and dark energy, and background radiation passing through and near Earth should all have a more complex pattern after the encounter. In theory it should be possible and perhaps even straightforward to reconstruct the exact state of our planet as it was in the past, down to the last atom, by measuring neutrinos that passed near it ages ago.
This seems somewhat unlikely. Perhaps neutrinos and dark matter don't 'really' exist; but are merely symbolic placeholders representing interactions between distant particles. In that case, these tiny particles wouldn't be nearly as computationally complex as they appear to be.

 

Test two: The principle of mediocrity.

The laws of physics should be as simple as possible, while still allowing abundance.
When we finally reconstruct the exact conditions of the Big Bang, we should find there are many ways the laws of physics could have been more complex and computationally more intensive, and far fewer ways in which they could have been simpler. If the laws of physics had been only slightly simpler, the total complexity of the resulting universe should have been vastly lower. Each of the four forces in physics should be essential for this purpose. In fact, it should seem like a miracle they aren't more complex.

There may be resonances and feedback loops between phenomena controlled by different forces (like two atoms orbiting each other) as a source of unexpected complexity.
There could also be compression artifacts in reality, like certain preferred directions in any reference frame.

 

Test three: The principle of diversity

Perhaps the list of all possible observers can't be simplified or summarized. At the highest level of reality, natural categories may not exist; only a smooth continuum of entities that blend into each other, changing in all ways in all dimensions. Slightly different versions of everyone inhabit adjacent probability curves, experiencing similar lives with all minor and major details altered.
With no common principles of any kind, reality is fundamentally unpredictable. This would make it much harder if not impossible to test anthropic theories.
Even if there are no universal rules, it may be practical to examine the next highest level, and detect a general trend toward chaos or order.
Test 1: Measure the frequency of all possible phenomena, and plot their distribution. Confirm that seemingly unconnected variables are really independent.
Test 2: If a quantum computer can exist, it might also be possible to exchange messages with other universes; but if all the possibilities cancel out exactly, the alternate realities may not leave a detectable signal.
Instead of a quantum computer, which 'splits up' at a geometric rate before recombining, different timelines might be able to 'converge' a 'Unification Box'. It would be controlled by a random quantum number generator, to decide which timeline would insert a message and when.
That might be the hardest task ever. Apparently even a galaxy-sized quantum computer couldn't solve the Turing Halting Problem much faster than a conventional computer.

  ~~~

 

Anthropic Computing in a quantum universe.

 

Quantum physics and evolution.
Any number of things can and must go wrong. Eventually, every path will reach a dead end. However, by creating a multitude of new paths, quantum physics can always offer the possibility of an escape, however improbable.

  Quantum complexity could become a self-actualization tool. Ultra-miniaturized post-human minds may choose to embed their most successful or favorite mind patterns as large-scale patterns in ordinary matter, turning them into a larger percentage of reality. Only a small minority of minds would be favored in this way.

 

Extreme Implications
Mankind's descendants may develop methods to 'collapse' or 'amplify' realities, depending on whether a trigger event has taken place.
A statistical feedback process could increase the probability of any desired event happening, by multiplying those universes (or portions thereof) in which it has occurred, and limiting those in which it hasn't.
This would exploit quantum entropy.
A low-entropy system like a specially modified mind could be 'multiplied' at will, simply by making it think more, thereby unleashing its potential complexity.
By considering many possibilities, it would assume many possible states in many different universes; but only once a desired result had been achieved. In this way, minds could choose to 'amplify' those events. (By a stretch of the imagination, this is also the theme of the otherwise lunatic bestseller 'the Secret'.)
Alternatively, if a desired event had not happened, the mind would not dwell on its failure, but simply minimize its thoughts until the next multiplication attempt, thereby becoming a smaller percentage of reality.
This purely statistical effect would seem almost paranormal to the user, but not to outside observers, who would not necessarily be affected.
Such a method might not be practical because of the diversity principle mentioned earlier, unless some outside source of entropy could be found and exploited. After a while, there could be entropy markets, shortages, and even wars, perhaps clustered around black holes or cosmic strings.
In the most extreme version, the participant would simply commit suicide if a desired event hadn't happened, knowing another version in another universe would have inevitably succeeded. This would not necessarily be problematic for AIs, which would be much easier to replace and copy than humans.

  ~~~

 

Life after death

People forget almost everything that happens to them. What remains is a relatively small amount of essential data: a description of meaningful past events, social skills, behavior parameters, values and preferences. Almost everyone would like to preserve this information indefinitely, but doing so will take very advanced technology.

  Death is not necessarily the end of awareness. Each mind can be described as a time-like path. With an infinite number of copies spread throughout reality, it may be effectively immortal, but become increasingly uncommon as time goes by.
Mind patterns may self-actualize and combine in many ways, but some paths are likelier than others.

Immortal mind pathways:
-Fragments of thoughts could 'self-assemble' into consistent timelines (Greg Egan's 'Dust' hypothesis).
-It's possible to imagine a universe in which an observer survives any adversity by pure chance. Existence simply gets more and more bizarre as time passes.
-Human minds could be resurrected as false memories within other people or software.

 

The principle of mediocrity would apply even after death
Anyone hoping for a scientific reincarnation should not expect to become much more enlightened. Statistically, more smaller, simpler minds should be (re)created than large, complex ones.
The process would be as similar as possible to whatever had created the deceased mind in the first place. Most likely, they would become early computer simulations produced by slightly more advanced civilizations.
The civilization would have just the minimum level of complexity necessary to recreate the mind in question. The restored minds would probably not find themselves in their own future, but in a parallel timestream. They would never have existed there before, but other beings very similar to them might have.

 

Is there a way to influence this process?
The ideal target universe would be as advanced as possible, creating high-quality simulations of people who previously could have lived there.
The most likely resurrection would occur in the near future. To guide this process, we could begin creating this future society right now.

Still living people might try to evolve into a mind-type more likely to be recreated by advanced civilizations.
They could conceivably influence this process by:
-developing a stable or otherwise useful personality.
-developing the attitudes a future civilization might hold.
-becoming the kind of mind they would want to be recreated as.
-preparing to recreate past minds themselves, thereby learning more about the process.

  Most minds are anchored in place by overwhelming odds, making it very difficult to escape. The first step might be to make their identity less certain, by creating vague or false memories.

  ~~~

 

Towards a universal ethics

Erasing unwanted timelines: is it possible to change reality with AI reprogramming, or even amnesia drugs and false memories?

  The ultimate goal of progress would be to manipulate the laws of statistics themselves, the frequency distribution of reality, if such a thing is possible.
In a 'perfect' multiverse, most possible realities shouldn't exist. Certain minds will be made less likely to exist, other more desirable minds more likely.
It could become like a new, universal religion.

 

The principle of non-existence
One definition of absurdity is involuntary existence.
In principle, any entity that would prefer not to exist would have a right not to be created in the first place. Our best hope may be to remove as many bad situations as possible, and hope the rest will take care of themselves.

 

The Erasure Paradox
This leads to the most dangerous form of anthropic computing, related to abortion and euthanasia.
Morally advanced civilizations may try to prevent unpleasant lives from taking place for the victim's own good, even if the beneficiary wouldn't have wanted their 'help'. A secondary goal would be to prevent 'perverse evolution', which maximizes a group's suffering, like a race of beings deliberately bred for slavery, or able to feel extremely intense pain, which would aid their survival in the short term.
Eventually, this could lead to cosmic wars, if not the ultimate conflict between opposing universal principles.

  Theological principle of non-existence (agnostic interpretation): 'God' would be the absence of the existence of unwanted things.

 

Anthropic off-ramps
Virtual gateways from one universe to another, designed for minds trapped in a hellish existence.
The target minds of this procedure would be copied many times as simulations in other universes. Eventually, they would find themselves more likely to exist in the second universe (more advanced technically and morally) than in the first. They would then be converted to a new, more tolerable existence.
This practice has serious ethical risks, since the adverse conditions would have to be simulated and thereby multiplied first.

  Traditionally, the greatest mystery is: "Why does something exist rather than nothing?"
Solutions include the "bootstrap principle", and even attempts to make the problem seem trivial.
If the universe were completely devoid of energy, space, and time, the rules of mathematics would still apply. Pi would still be a transcendental number. The equations describing our universe would still be true.
A better way of stating the problem might be: what created the rules of logic if not themselves?

 

---

For more about this strange subject, be the first to read
the best hard SF novel ever written: Infinite Thunder by Jack Arcalon.
Buy the book
Read some chapters