Looking At A "Systems Approach" Argument For Why There Is No Afterlife

Christina Anne Knight, in her recent (July, p. 32)  Mensa Bulletin piece 'Why There Is No Afterlife - A Systems Perspective' - pulls no punches.  In this post I examine her idea more closely, and why it might have some ballast.  Basically,  Ms. Knight's approach is based on materialist (Darwinian) evolution, which is an argument I have also used in the past.

For example, as I wrote in my post ('Meeting Our Extended Hominid Family'   ) of February 23, 2010:

"As we all know, and can be grown-up enough to say, neither the descendants of apes, or apes themselves possess "souls". There is only a brain, but it is ample to generate consciousness as I already showed in my 'Materialist Model of Consciousness'. Thus, when a human (or ape) dies, that's it. He is gone and there is nothing left - nothing to "punish" and nothing to go on. This hard fact may be why so many evangelicals refuse to accept evolution: they don't want to accept: a) they have no souls, and b) when they're dead, that's it, finito."

The post was accompanied by the following graphic:


So the most primitive hominid ancestor (Ardipithecus Kadabba) depicted at the lower left, from 6 million years ago - possessed no soul - nor did the evolutionary continuum following onward, i.e. to Homo Habilis and Homo Sapiens (upper right). Hence, when either died there would be nothing to go on, to survive in any afterlife.  Nor would there be some unexpected, magical "break out" point in between,  at which a soul suddenly manifests. 

This is analogous to Ms. Knight's argument, i.e.:

"It is a safe assumption that most people do not believe trilobites or velociraptors are at present hanging out with 72 virgin members of their species in some species -specific version of paradise.....Therefore, if we accept that none of our extinct, nonhuman forbears or members of other contemporary species have attained an afterlife, why should anyone believe that Homo sapiens are destined for a different fate?"

Then asking the $64 question:

"What evolutionary adaptation occurred that permitted the existence of something within humans to survive death?"

She then answers the question by naming what most of us already understand  as that manifestation of sentience known as consciousness,  but pointing out "it is not exclusive to our species."

Adding:

"The emergence of consciousness occurred within a hierarchic evolutionary context. So does it even make sense to conceive of the conscious mind outside of systemic structures that supply it contextual meaning?   In other words if I am a product of nature and nurture, what good is an afterlife in which the physical context that shaped my personality is no longer relevant?"

To fix ideas, in a post in which I skewered the concept of a "natural afterlife" (Feb. 9, 2014) I noted the fundamental unit of neural dynamics:

In this 'cartoon' graphic we are looking at an electro-chemical signal (action potentials in (B) ) which are conveyed to the receptor neurons in the region of the temporal lobes. The waveform really represents changes in permeability, we note that when an axon is in its resting state it maintains a constant potential difference, or ‘resting membrane potential’ of –70 mV. When it is excited, it rises to a peak voltage of around 40 mV. This is sketched as the wave pulse peak in (B) with the ‘baseline’ value of (-70 mV) included for reference. One could say that (A) portrays the axon segment shown in a kind of equilibrium condition, or one conducive to a dream state. Only levels of partial consciousness are available in these states.  Generally, a full peak voltage of 40mV is associated with some level of consciousness.

Now, we go to the driver of consciousness localized at the site of the synaptic cleft or terminal.















In the diagram, we focus on Axon 1 and note that when the action potential arrives at the terminal it’s depolarized. This depolarization enables Calcium ions (Ca+2) already within the terminal to diffuse out into the mediating space. These ions follow a concentration gradient, unlike the case of the Na+ ions in the sodium pump. As the ions migrate, then diffuse to the post-synaptic cell (at Axon 2), they leave a channel in their wake that allows quantal releases of neurotransmitter (shown as a solid dot). These, like the Ca+2 ions diffuse across to the post-synaptic cell(s).

One neurotransmitter is acetylcholine. If the transmission of this or any similar chemical is rapid firing will occur, if not it won’t. Note also that Axon 2 must have a way of eliminating neurotransmitters almost as soon as they arrive. For acetylcholine, the enzyme cholinesterase acts to break it down into choline and acetate. In these inactive forms the neuron is spared being in a state of maximal and continuous excitation that would otherwise destroy it.

Generalizing the electrical cable analogy, the synapses act as switches in the system, the ‘on’ or ‘off’ positions denoted by information, in the form of chemical messages, to cross the synaptic cleft and trigger firing of the post-synaptic neuron(s) or not. Most probably there are bundles of similar neurons linked together by their respective connections, to perform critical functions. One might refer to the neuronal super-assembly or 'super-circuit’ within which considerations such as networks, and optimization of paths as well as 'adjacency and order' take precedence. Again, this is almost absurdly oversimplified since there really are no neurons that have only one connection to another. Indeed, we expect the typical neuron to have something like 10,000 connections to others.

What happens if this entire neural dynamic is terminated? We can begin to grasp the effects by first noting from the above diagrams that all waves of polarization and de-polarization cease. Hence, all synaptic activity ceases. There is no more firing of neurons, nor is there any movement of neurotransmitters across axons. 

Consider the same  electric cable analogy described above in terms of what happens at death. Well, the putative electrical signal cable is cut. What happens if an electrical cable to your home is cut? Well the service is terminated...there is no energy "leakage' or  residue that continues after cutting because this would violate the physical laws we know. The electrical energy cannot continue to propagate into your home devoid of the cable within which it's carried. In the same way, all the brain's potential energy terminates at death, there are no 'residuals' left to continue anywhere. Hence, there can be no afterlife.

Ms. Knight in line with this basis,  writes (ibid.):

"The dying system decomposes into subsystem structures lower in the holarchic order that are sustainable within the systemic environment of the deceased system. A dead body becomes a nutrient source for other living systems and not a ghoulish distribution of functioning organs."

What is this "holarchic order" to which she refers?

She notes that the term  "holarchy" (first used by Arthur Koestler in The Ghost in the Machine) embodies  the "interdependence, interrelations and interaction of subsystems which results in a form of self-organization from which a larger system is an emergent product".  In other words, consciousness is not an epiphenomenon of the brain but this very emerged product.  But the extinction of such a system (and emergent product) occurs when the system fails to retain stability.  That is triggered when the key components die, e.g. neurons, neuronal sub-assemblies etc.

This is what Ms. Knight is getting at when she avers a conscious mind cannot exist outside of the function of the key systemic structures.  If then it is the impermanent character of all systems that "makes evolution a universal process"  then:

"If the conscious mind is located at the apex of this holarchic system , then the collapse of the substructure beneath it has terminal consequences."

Thus,

"The conscious mind becomes just another impermanent system subject to physical laws.  It does not survive death because it cannot exist outside the holarchic structure from which it emerged"

In other words, there is no conscious personal entity that survives the dissolution of the neural system with its synaptic connections, neurons etc. As I pointed out earlier.  

Is this plausible?  As I've repeatedly observed in my several  atheist books, it does represent - by the Ockham's Razor principle (simplest hypothesis is the most likely under several options) - the simplest answer for what happens when one dies. Thus, there is no "white light" waiting, no judgment of anything, just a big nothingness - analogous to what occurs with general anesthesia.

However, one specialist anesthesiologist by profession - Stuart Hameroff -   has offered a partial way out for those who think nothingness is too bleak an end.   

After 35 years of anaesthetizing patients and seeing the same results over and over Hameroff  was led to postulate that small structures in the brain called "microtubules" are at the root of apparent "escaped" consciousness and that they hold the key to what happens. He also surmises that at putative death (or even "near death") essential energy associated with the microtubules disperses out from the brain and becomes "entangled" in a larger, undifferentiated whole.

Hameroff cites certain aspects of quantum mechanics to explain his reasoning though, he leaves some ends open. In the brain, information persists through a phenomenon called quantum coherence. 

This means that a multitude of quantum wave states are stored in a multitude of microtubules. Precisely how this is done remains a speculative  area but the point is that if one is aware and conscious there is a high degree of locality. When one dies, those wave states presumably evacuate and one's consciousness enters the domain of non-locality.

Hameroff's basic argument then, is that death doesn't mean the final termination of consciousness, so much as the end of its localization. If that is so, you cease to be a "person" or an individual identity and instead merge with other dispersed quantum wave forms (I have called them "B-waves" or de Broglie waves) to enter an "oceanic" state. 

The difference between the individual and oceanic states is often depicted using an illustration similar to that below:

INDIVIDUALITY:

___Ç___Ç___Ç___Ç___Ç___  

DIRAC ENERGY SEA (IMPLICATE ORDER) 

This gives a nice analogy between the "ocean" and individual waves, i.e. localized beings, entities. Here the individual manifestations occur within the "explicate order" - in the language used by physicist David Bohm. This is contrasted to the oceanic or holographic view.

which he calls the "implicate order".  See e.g.

[PDF]

Wholeness and the Implicate Order

I have to reiterate again that Hameroff's conception isn't really any kind of recognizable "afterlife". Indeed, it is impossible to even remotely describe a putative nonlocal state (of being)  as experiencing an afterlife, if it perceives at all. 

It also leaves a decided negative slant on the question of preserving any sense of self. How can one if the self is no longer separable but one with an oceanic "sea"? It appears at first blush, however, to be: 1) consistent with Christina Knight's holarchic system approach (since B-waves are not apart from her holarchic system) and 2) only one step removed from the atheist's state of total obliteration and nothingness.

Indeed, for all intents, Hameroff's afterlife and the atheist's nothingness post -death may essentially be indistinguishable.   In the meantime, I understand (via an email from the Mensa Bulletin editor) there will be a response to Christina Knight's systems conception excluding an afterlife. When it arrives, I will examine it as well.

Pope Denies Existence Of "Hell" - Why The Big Fuss?

As reported in the weekend WSJ ('Shifting Lines: Pope's Uncertainty Principle'  p. A9, Mar. 31- April 1) Pope Francis evidently denied the existence of a cornerstone of Roman Catholic "boogeyman" doctrine in a recent interview. We read:

"For Pope Francis the unconventional has become routine. Still, the news Thursday morning was startling. Italian journalist Eugenio Scalfari, a friend and frequent interviewer of the pope, reported that the pontiff had denied the existence of hell.  Sinners who die without  achieving eternal salvation 'are not punished' the pope said, according to an article by Mr. Scalfari in the Italian newspaper La Repubblica"

The Pope added for clarity:

"There is no hell. There is the disappearance of sinful souls."

Of course, as the author (Francis X. Rocca) points out, the Vatican's fossils quickly went into panic PR mode, trying to spin the account away from core doctrinal denial.. After all, what good would it do if nearly a billion Catholics weren't kept quaking in their boots by the threat of hell?  So, the Vatican did the only thing they could, short of denying the pope denied hell - they insisted Scalfari's article was a "reconstruction" - as opposed to a transcript of his conversation with Francis.

In truth, one wonders why the big kerfuffle erupted given simple, consistent but rigorous exercise of logic would disclose hell is a confection, a fiction.  The pope's denial of hell in this context is merely a manifestation of his invoking critical thinking and logic as opposed to blind adherence to an archaic doctrine..  The  basic logical contradiction inherent in the hell concept can be encapsulated by the diagram shown below:

This presumes a "punishment partition" in infinite Being leading to the Hell-Infinite -God paradox. The claimed "infinitude" (or omnipresence), e.g.  of an infinite deity is contradictory to the acceptance of a Hell.  This is provided one grants that "infinite"literally  means everywhere or pervading all of Being.

In such a case there is literally no place left where - whatever it is- doesn't exist. Hence, if applied to "God" it means all inclusive of reality. Including ALL transcendent reality, assuming such exists.

The diagram shown illustrates the point. The whole vast field defined as "Omega" (Greek symbol) is taken to be one unitary Being or "God". It is taken to be literally infinite, meaning occupying all Being, all there is. (I am assuming Catholics, like most Christians, take "infinite" literally not as "occupying most regions" but not all.  If the latter, then the Being is not infinite but finite - and hence a finite deity.

If one appends a Hell, as say a "punishment partition",  then this infinite Being is now delimited. In other words, it ceases to be infinite (or omnipresent)  since its Being is foreclosed where Hell exists, unless one would argue that Hell is part of God. Most Catholics I know don't wish to "go there".

Thus, if Hell is asserted to exist and is claimed to be "eternal" then God cannot be infinite. If God is maintained to be infinite - meaning all inclusive of Being- the only conclusions possible are that either a) Hell doesn't exist, or b) Hell must be a part of God's Being!

By this exercise in logic, Pope Francis would be perfectly justified in denying the existence of Hell because it is logically contradictory to the concept of God as infinite unitary Being. Up to now, I've not seen or heard any religionist able to refute this logic, even by resort to the most twisted semantic somersaults.

But what about the pope's claim that the sinners just "disappear" - as in wink out of existence? This really isn't that much of  stretch and most atheists already believe this applies to everyone, not just them.  Think of it like a general anesthesia from which you never wake up.

Under general anesthesia - as I've been, three times in the past two years- there is no consciousness of any temporal passage. You are knocked out one second, then after the operation or procedure, you come back to consciousness. It is as if no time has elapsed - even hours - between going under and re-surfacing in the hospital recovery room.

If  you died while under general anesthesia - say if the operation went  badly wrong - would you notice it? I doubt it. It would simply be a case that you never transition back to consciousness.  It would be as if you never "woke up". This is the form of extinction the pope is referencing for "sinners",  but again which most atheists take to be the final end to shuffling this mortal coil anyway. (Atheists do not subscribe, at least most of them, to the 'natural afterlife' idea which requires accepting a subjective time whereby a  final "dream state" can transform into an eternal state of afterlife, independent of consciousness.)

WSJ author Rocca cites Brit correspondent Christopher Lamb who sees the pope's anti-doctrinal stance as consistent with 'a move away from the institutional and doctrinal and toward a greater focus on personal conscience" which is good.   In addition, under Francis the Vatican's doctrinal office has more or less backed off on issuing judgments including on controversial questions of sexual and medical ethics.  This also comports with Francis' efforts to liberalize moral teachings, including on divorce, and artificial contraception.

My take is that Francis sees this liberalization as essential especially after the Church lost vast moral capital in the wake of the priest sexual abuse crisis.  Thus, for the Vatican's doctrinal obsessives to double down on their moral dicta - say to do with any number of behaviors, especially sexual - would simply drive more reflective Catholics away..

Francis then, at least has the  sense to acknowledge he's playing on a losing wicket, and to make the most of it instead of pretending the opposite.

Resolving the ‘Natural Afterlife’ issue: It Seems There’s No Real 'Natural Afterlife' After All

 

Natural Afterlife proponent Bryon Ehlmann insists I have no clue about how the NA works, and that “there is no violation of the 2^nd law of thermodynamics”.  He writes:

“Because the natural afterlife involves absolutely nothing that is physically any different from what science assumes occurs at or after death, it cannot possibly violate any physical laws, including the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If it does violate these laws, then such laws are being violated every time someone dies.”

 

Let’s drop the semantics and just cut to the chase: whether we are talking about the dead person locked into an “ideation” or a “perception” it still requires ENERGY to sustain it.  This is irrespective of whether the person is actually DEAD and in a natural AFTER-life, or is "near" - dead, in which case remaining living processes ensure further energy inputs!

Meanwhile, you cannot have a perception for an already dead man, unless you are arguing for a non-physical existent, in which case your afterlife is little different from supernaturalism.

 Now, since energy at death has reached the ultimate disordered state, as I showed in my blog post of Feb. 10, it means there is no further capability to support any kind of an ordered state, i.e. bearing content or information. This includes a “perception” which, irrespective of being for dead man or living, must embody an energy content per bit. This informational energy per bit has been quantified as 0.693 kT where k is Boltzmann’s constant and T is the ambient temperature.

 As for “laws being violated every time someone dies” – yes – they seemingly are, by the natural afterlife brigade! Specifically the 2^nd law of thermodynamics is being violated. We are expected to believe that an entity in a state of maximal entropy, including its brain, can be expected to give rise to any kind of “perception”.

 
But wait! Hold strain! Evidently I got it all wrong and my presumption that the natural afterlife is really an AFTERLIFE, is totally mistaken! Evidently, according to a further comment from Mr. Ehlmann,  I have conflated a pre-death perception with a post –death “never ending dream” or dream state (never mind proponents refer to it as an NED, or “never ending dream”).   It’s time to really clean up the language here, especially the  murky semantics.

Fortunately, Mr. Ehlmann’s next comments help immensely:

“My bottom line: the natural afterlife DOES NOT “persist indefinitely” in any physical way following death and thus needs no energy to support it!”

 But again, the problem is in the semantics! If it “does not persist indefinitely in any physical way following death”, then what NON-physical way is left?   It is clear that we are being led into metaphysical territory here. The only alternative is the supernatural.  

Let’s lay this out in clear terms: There are only two defined possibilities for bracketing conditions of life and afterlife: the physical and non-physical. If then the conditions don’t meet the first, then the second are all that’s left, and the only non-physical realm which has been adequately elaborated (by theologians) is the supernatural.

 

Bryon could help us out here by providing the necessary and sufficient conditions for the natural “afterlife” to occur, but he has not yet done so. This shows me the NA concept isn’t clear in his own mind. It’s more a matter of words or rhetoric, with overtones of philosophy.

Fortunately, an additional, clarifying  comment by Mr. Ehlmann seems to clear the way for final resolution, making it feasible for us to not even have to ‘agree to disagree’:

Your blog posts of Feb. 9-10 clearly indicate that you mistakenly think that the natural afterlife requires a dream state that survives death. IT DOES NOT! A timeless, everlasting natural afterlife exists only as a perception in the mind of the dying person BEFORE death. The combination of matter and energy required to produce this perception does not survive death.

 

Okay, I guess I can be forgiven for taking too literally the natural afterlifers’ NED – or “Never ending dream”….or AFTER-life concept. So, okay it’s not a never-ending dream after all, it exists only as a “perception” in the mind of the dying person before death. So, in other words, the natural after life doesn’t exist at all!  There is NO  “after”  in any real, objective sense.

 What we have here then is a phenomenon of subjective time – experienced by the dying person before he shuffles his mortal coil.

 If this is so, then Ehlman is correct that the 2^nd law doesn’t apply. (However, if he objects to the subjective time format, he essentially contradicts himself).

 The downside is that then there is no genuine afterlife, only a semantics ploy based on a perception that erupted in the dying person’s mind before death. Nothing is carried on.

 Let’s now examine subjective time as represented in the graphic shown at top. Here I plot the subjective time t on the abscissa vs. the proper time (actual clock time) T, in the objective physical world.  We assume an inertial reference frame to measure T, and no relativistic motion.  In addition, we adopt the (Henry Stapp) version of the Copenhagen Interpretation and assume that the angle f is linked to the presence of an evolving wave function y so long as there is an objective passage of time.  (In which case the time -dependent Schrodinger equation applies).

 As shown, the peculiar nature of subjective time is that a psychological, internal state is able to “stretch” the experience of objective or proper time. In the case shown, 1 minute is stretched to roughly 4 mins. of subjective time, though it could also be 1 hour vs.4  hours, or 1 yr. vs, 4  years. The point is that given an appropriate psychological state to induce it, yes, the personal experience of time can be subjectively extended at the level of t, but despite that the actual clock time hasn’t changed.  (I.e. minutes are still minutes, hours are still hours, etc. Perception doesn't change the units of proper time, only internal or subjective time!)

 Now,  what if the extreme case occurs such that f = 0?    This logically means there is no further evolution of  y   in time.  (Hence, by the CI model, consciousness is no longer applicable since it requires y,  according to Stapp's CI variant).  If we are reluctant to identify definite states, i.e. death – then we might use an analog of the limit concept such that:

 lim  _{t ® ¥}    (T /t)  =   tan f = 0 

In other words, as the subjective time t tends toward infinity, the tangent of f  tends to 0, and of course so does the proper (clock) time T. (When T = 0 entropy ceases to enter into  further considerations. Bear in mind in our context here,  T is paired to the person's biological processes. Thus, at T= 0 there is full biological death)

 Bear in mind given the use of a limit here, we aren’t technically talking of a post death state, we are only approaching death as the time T  ® 0 (i.e. t ®  ¥).   But for all intents, to the person, it is a "timeless" state. In effect, we have finally come to agreement in what Ehlmann refers to as:

“A timeless, everlasting natural afterlife exists only as a perception in the mind of the dying person BEFORE death”

Indeed, in the subjective temporal context  the person would be in a timeless state, since for him the clock time T = 0 (i.e. “timeless”) but in his experience his perception is “ever lasting” given the subjective time t ®  ¥. (Again, bear in mind the limit concept!)

 My problem again, is the use of the term “after life” for this pre-death subjective, temporal anomaly  – experienced by the dying person. Indeed, given Ehlmann admits the NED isn’t a true post-death state then it bears some analogy to the NDE, which also isn’t a genuine post death state  - only “near” death. (I won’t get into all the technicalities of how NDEs differ from NEDs).

I am not sure what term (or acronym)  is better suited, but perhaps we might finally be able to agree on:

Ersatz afterlife, or NEAR Afterlife, e.g. NAL

Of course, this means that  the de Broglie wave option is the only true natural afterlife left – justified by the name!   That is, it is applicable to the post-death state, unlike the NED, which Ehlmann admits is only applicable to the pre-death state (irrespective of whatever “perceptions” the person has)

 

One more caveat. The Heisenberg energy- time uncertainty principle, e.g.

D E D t  ³  ħ  

Can certainly be applied to the case of a dying person’s synapses up to the point the proper clock time T = 0 (i.e. all biological 'clocks' cease). Hence, Ehlmann’s complaints that it’s “not applicable” are irrelevant. So long as any (biological) clock time is recorded, one can estimate energy in the dying person’s synapses using it.

In conclusion, it occurs to me – after seeing all these semantic contortions (in order to proffer an “afterlife” that’s not really an afterlife) - that the NAL proponents are more lost in their own rhetoric than they realize. It also brings to mind the old adage of Lord Kelvin: "Unless a man can quantify what he's talking about, he isn't saying anything."

But at least it appears we can finally end this debate if the NALs will at last acknowledge that what they have is no real afterlife but a facsimile of one- based on their insistence of a perception in the mind of the dying person BEFORE death.

Do We Inhabit A Virtual Cosmos? And Can We Prove It?

The question of whether the universe is really an elaborate, multi-dimensional simulation has been around for a number of years.  In a conjecture published some ten years ago[1], Nick Bostrom considered whether the universe and everything within it (including stars, galaxies, planets and human beings.) is one massive, virtual  simulation- a vast and intricate hyper quantum computer program being run from outside- perhaps by an extraordinary intelligence..

Note here that the basis for a quantum computable universe has already been well explicated in books such as: Programming the Universe by  MIT quantum computing engineer Seth Lloyd.  Lloyd estimated the number of 'computer operations' our universe has performed since the Big Bang, every single event that has ever happened, to show how these might emulate 'programming steps'. Of course, as Lloyd has pointed out, this universe simulation can't be replicated. It would require a computer bigger than the universe, though "time would tick more slowly in the program than reality."


In addition, given all entities are mostly empty space anyway,  ultimately predicated on quantum wave forms or wave functions, one can easily see how the ability to manipulate quantum units at will could lead to a simulation of an entire universe. In fact, if one builds consistently on quantum mechanics one can theoretically arrive at all the macroscopic laws of nature that we see govern our universe. For example, in the limit of the quantum number n ® ¥, quantum mechanics converges to Newtonian mechanics, so this rule like others (e.g. Bohr's Complementarity Principle, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, conservation of mass-energy etc.) can easily be built into the simulated system.

  In a sense, if the universe is simulated, then we and all other life forms within it are avatars. And as fanciful as that sounds, some philosophers have long argued that we are more likely to be artificial intelligences, or 3D virtual representations, trapped in a fake universe, than we are to be organically-based minds in a real one. Of course, if these philosophers are correct, then admittedly the concept of a natural afterlife (see previous blog posts from Feb. 9, 10) might be feasible. The reason is that, if the cosmos is a virtual simulation then the very laws of physics (e.g. entropy law) that allow us to devise reality-checking technology and measurements, might have little to do with the rules that govern the meta-cosmos inhabited by our simulators. In other words, if they wish to suspend the 2nd law of thermodynamics to enable a perpetual dream state at death, they can do so.  (But this is the only way I could see that afterlife working!)

But how would one know it or prove it? First things first: Is this equivalence of physical body and cyber-body (avatar) going too far? I don't believe so. The cyber-body is ultimately composed of moving electrons and quanta (photons) that cause multiple pixels on the monitor screen to vary in intensity, producing the illusion of motion. By the same token, the physical body is ultimately constituted of electrons, and can receive and process photons, e.g. by the optic nerve. On a quantum mechanical level the two bodies are very nearly the same. The differences appear at the gross or macroscopic levels, where the physical body displays a 3-dimensional solidity and differentiation of organs, tissues and cells. But are these fundamental? Who can say? It depends on the constructions, doesn't it?

 Assuming clever enough simulations, say using quadrillions of quantum spin system gates operating in tandem, arguably no one would know the difference. In 1982, the Nobel-winning physicist Richard Feynman made a notable (and as it turns out, prescient) observation concerning a “universal quantum simulator”. Feynman conjectured that to obtain 300 nuclear spins, the quantum simulator would need only 300 quantum bits or qubits. So long as one could program the interactions between qubits so that they emulated the interactions between the 300 nuclear spins, the dynamics would be simulated.

Was Feynman off his rocker? Not really! As it turns out one of the best ways to generate simulations via a quantum computer is to use nuclear spins. To see how this could work, study the accompanying diagram with three versions of nuclear spin – to which each is assigned a wave state vector in bracket form. In this case, the nuclear spin down state corresponds to 1>, the spin up state to 0> and there is a combined state: 0 > + 1 >.. (The last is a state of spin along the axis perpendicular to the spin-axis).

More to the point, the latter superposition illustrates the property of quantum parallelism: the ability to compute or register two states simultaneously, which is impossible for normal computers (which register 0 OR 1, never both at one time – unless they are in glitch mode!) Thus, a quantum computer can manipulate two bits (qubits) at one time. If there are a trillion such qubits, each can potentially register 1 and 0 in combined wave bracket states, simultaneously.  It should also be easily seen that this combined wave state is the analog of the superposition of states seen in the electron double slit experiment, e.g. for

                                                   y = y1 + y2

Any qubit in a state (0) can be placed in the double-qubit state by rotating it one fourth of a turn (as evident from inspection of the diagram)  Much more fascinating (and to the point) is that if another qubit is introduced into the scene - say with the same wave state 0> its presence can “flip” the original qubit , effectively producing a quantum-controlled NOT operation which acts like a classical NOT gate. It is billions and billions of such logic gates which form the basis of computing. Given that qubits also hold much more information than ordinary bits, it is easy to see that if such nuclear spins can be used in the sort of logic gate manner described, one can have the basis for a quantum computer.

If one can have such an entity, then one could simulate just about anything. To use the words of Seth Lloyd[2] :

                    

A quantum computer that simulated the universe would have exactly as many qubits as there are in the universe, and the logic operations on those qubits would exactly simulate the dynamics of the universe.


              And further[3]:

Because the behavior of elementary particles can be mapped directly onto the behavior of qubits acting via logic operations, a simulation of the universe on a quantum computer is indistinguishable from the universe itself

This is a profound statement! It implies that if the universe were indeed a mammoth simulation we’d likely never be able to prove it.  But.....what if the simulators, analogous to human beings, aren't 'gods' or perfect? Then it is feasible an imperfect copy of the universe may be running, just good enough to fool most of its inhabitants - at least until they evolved the brain power to conceive applicable tests.

A breakthrough came in 2007, when John D. Barrow, a professor of mathematical sciences at Cambridge University first suggested that an imperfect simulation of reality would contain detectable glitches. Just like this computer I'm now using to blog, the universe's operating system would need updates to keep working. As the simulation degraded, Barrow observed, we might see aspects of nature that are supposed to be constant, i.e. the speed of light, or the fine structure constant, inexplicably 'drift' from their stable values.

Two years ago, Silas Beane and colleagues at the University of Washington, suggested a more concrete test of the simulation hypothesis. Most physicists assume space is smooth and extends out infinitely. But cosmologists modeling the early universe cannot easily re-create a perfectly smooth background to contain their atoms, stars and galaxies.  Instead, they build up their simulated space from a lattice or grid, just as television images are comprised of multiple pixels.

Silas' team calculated that the motion of particles within their simulation, and hence their energy, is related to the distance between the points of the lattice: the smaller the grid size the higher the energy of particles can be. That means that if our universe is a virtual simulation, we will observe a maximum energy for the fastest particles.

As it happens, astronomers have observed that cosmic rays - high speed particles that originate in far flung galaxies- always arrive at Earth's vicinity with a specific maximum energy of about 10²⁰    electron volts.  Recall that:  1.6 x 10^-19 J = 1 eV

So that:  10²⁰ eV  =   10²⁰  eV (1.6 x 10^-19 J /  eV )=       16 J

Another aspect comes to attention: IF space is continuous there is no underlying grid that guides the direction of cosmic rays. In other words, their direction ought to be isotropic - or coming from all directions, equally. Thus, a major test that we live in a simulated cosmos would be a non-isotropic distribution of cosmic rays. It is premature to make any decision here, since astronomers need much more cosmic ray data to make the case one way or the other.

In the meantime, does it make a difference, really - if the cosmos is virtual or real? Not to me. Other than  that I would hope that the virtual simulators, whoever or whatever they are, wouldn't manipulate the 'game' too much!  (I.e. programming in  'demonic' possessions to make certain twits believe demons are real.) Oh, and if they would, I'd rather they pass on letting me have a "natural afterlife"!

---

[1] Bostrom:  Philosophical Quarterly.(53),  243 .

[2] Lloyd:  Programming the Universe, 154.
[3] Ibid.