(TL;DR: Is the universe just a computer, or is it something more?)
There is an ongoing debate in physics (and somewhat in philosophy as well, as it has much relevance, I believe) about whether or not all events in the universe have been predetermined since the time of the Big Bang (or however the universe really got its start). This is a debate that I have drawn myself into, and have been fighting with myself over ever since I drew myself into it. I don't even remember exactly HOW I got myself into it, but I do know that it gets to me on such a deep level that I've even contemplated ending my own life (although not seriously).
The basic concept is this: We have a perception that we are free beings, i.e. there are absolutely no restrictions on what we can do with our lives, and that the only restrictions are the ones that we place on ourselves. However, there have been recent findings in many scientific fields that seem to suggest that there ARE restrictions, and that they lie in the very intrinsic bases of our behavioral patterns.
The brain is an amazing organ. It is durable, flexible, and very computationally capable. Seriously, writing a convincing artificial intelligence program for a typical silicon computer is no easy task, and it is still a topic of research. However, is the brain truly UNLIMITED in its capability, or is it merely so complex that we can't see where the limits lie? It's something akin to being in a desert: you're in the middle of what seems like an endless plain of sands, but the reality is that there IS an end to it, it's just so far away that you aren't able to see it yet. I feel like with the more research and scientific study that is being done in not just physics, but also things like psychology and neuroscience in particular, the concept of true and utter free will is becoming less and less credible.
I would hate to find out that all of our actions, words, and thoughts are predetermined, because it would mean that choice is an illusion; nothing more than an abstract mental concept generated deterministically by our brains in order to enable ourselves to function in life. If we stopped making choices, nothing would ever get done, and indeed, we would cease to exist!
You can't really escape making choices. For example, I am choosing to write this blog entry right now, when I could have just as easily not typed a single character. But could I have? THIS, I believe, is where the rub lies, and this is also where the physics stuff starts to come into play...
We, as humans, are made of physical matter, just like everything else in the universe. One would tend to conclude that because of this, we are governed by the same laws that govern the rest of the physical matter in our universe. If this is so, then isn't it possible, in theory, to calculate, deterministically, one's thoughts and/or actions? If one has only a basic grasp of Newtonian physics, then they might conclude this to be true and hence not believe in free will.
But, could one do this effectively? There is another proposition that all matter is affected by all other matter in the universe. If this is true, then theoretically one atom's position somewhere in a person's body could be the determining factor in whether they will get married and possibly have children, or if they will end up as a drifter on the streets begging for change. This idea creates one VERY major problem with calculating the future 100% accurately: you would have to construct a computer made of more particles than exist in the universe (in other words, a more-than-infinitely-large computer), which, as far as *I* know, is impossible. However, just because we can't CALCULATE the future doesn't mean it isn't happening, and we have been able to come up with rational descriptions for much of our existence anyway.
That brings me to another topic: The Theory of Everything. There is much thought being done on an idea that there is a "Grand Unified Theory of Everything" that explains all of existence, since the time of the Big Bang. If this "Theory of Everything" is proven in practice to be correct, then it would suggest that all existence (not only living existence) is predetermined, and that free will really IS only a figment of the imagination, designed to keep us going in life.
My personal reaction to this kind of news would be of devastaion; I would simply stop living. No, I don't mean I would kill myself, because that would just be another deterministic ouput to the input. It would, to me, reduce my life (and everyone else's lives) to a fixed series of computations that cannot be changed or violated in any way. It would mean that all of my personally cherished thoughts and hopes and dreams are really nothing more than an accidental abstract construct that has no real meaning to the greater universe. It would literally bring me to a stop. This is why it gets to me so much.
Much of my time as of recent is spent thinking and obsessing over randomness and chaos (even while I'm doing other things physically). There IS a difference between the two, but most people use the terms interchangeably. Randomness is an occurrance which is COMPLETELY unpredictable, i.e. there is no deterministic method of reproducing the occurrance. Chaos, on the other hand, is an occurrance that is unpredictable only to those who are not the CAUSE of the occurrance. It is still deterministic in nature, and it CAN be predicted, but only if one runs the algorithm at a faster rate than the original
subject.
Every chaotic number algorithm has to start with a "seed" or starting number(s), from which it calculates its stream of chaotic numbers. If you start with the same "seed" every time you run the algorithm, you will get the exact same sequence of numbers, because they were generated deterministically. However, if you were to, for example, stop the program, get a number from the sequence, and start a new stream of numbers from that new "seed", you would get an entirely DIFFERENT stream of numbers, however still generated deterministically.
What I'm wondering is: is there a "seed" to the universe, a first "number" that has been used to generate the stream of causality that we experience today? Is all of the apparent "randomness" that we see really only chaos, not true randomness? If this is so, theoretically you could predict the future. However, there are two problems with that idea: first, you would have to run this program, using the algorithm derived from a) the "seed of the universe", and b) the "Theory of Everything" formula, faster than TIME ITSELF. It would have to run a complete simulation of physical reality so fast that it would eventually reach and SURPASS the point in time in which the simulation started running. However, this brings me to the second problem: it would generate an infinite recursion. By that, I mean that within the simulation would have to be another simulation, and there would have to be another one within that one, and so on. It would bring the simulation to a halt VERY quickly once it reached the time when the simulation itself started, if you wanted to be 100% accurate.
By the way, if there IS a "seed of the universe", I would be very surprised if it turned out to be 42...okay, I know that was probably a dumb place to try and inject humor, but I'm trying to at least keep myself in a somewhat good mood as I write this.
It seems that it's impossible to fully simulate our physical universe with 100% accuracy, and yet it still exists. Does that mean that the universe is somehow not Turing-complete? Click the link if you want to know more about what that means. The basic description is that of a computing system that is able to simulate any other computing system, INCLUDING ITSELF, within itself. For example, silicon-based computers are considered "Turing-complete" if they can simulate their own hardware architecture in software (e.g. with an emulator). A program (which I use quite a bit myself) called DOSBox is an example of one of these emulators. It is capable of fully emulating an x86-based CPU on an x86-based CPU. Is the universe really so infinitely complex that we couldn't develop a "universe emulator" of our own? It's questions like this that bug me, because if they can be answered "no", then all my hope for there being any meaning in all of existence will be crushed...it's just another Turing machine. :(
There is so much to this problem that I can't really divulge it all here without taking up tons of page space (as if I haven't done that already :P), but let it be known that I'm one of probably many who have this problem. I hope to find enlightenment someday, and I hope that it brings me peace of mind.
Note: This was actually written some time back...I only just now decided to post it to my AC blog. Not sure if saying that makes any difference, but I just thought people should know. :\
Tristan
