5 ms·

IMHO as a biologist infused with awe of the natural world from observation and reading, it is laughable that gods or computers could design or simulate the infi

IMHO as a biologist infused with awe of the natural world from observation and reading, it is laughable that gods or computers could design or simulate the infinite levels of mind numbing complexity and unimaginable patterns that evolution has produced. But most people who are more focused on, and hungry for, the order created by technology and society in general, find it easy - with occasional cognitive dissonance, my favorite expression of which is the poem "Design" by Robert Frost: I found a dimpled spider, fat and white, On a white heal-all, holding up a moth Like a white piece of rigid satin cloth- Assorted characters of death and blight Mixed ready to begin the morning right, Like the ingredients of a witches’ broth-- A snow-drop spider, a flower like a froth, And dead wings carried like a paper kite. What had that flower to do with being white, The wayside blue and innocent heal-all? What brought the kindred spider to that height, Then steered the white moth thither in the night? What but design of darkness to appall?-- If design govern in a thing so small.

pmoriarty 10y ago
A beautiful poem. But who says that the "creators" couldn't be evil, or amoral, or just have different ethics/morals than humans, or who don't think in terms of ethics/morals? Also, while a human mind might marvel at some level of complexity, there's no reason why a superhuman mind would have to. I mean, imagine a "brain the size of a planet" (like Marvin's in The Hitchhiker's Guide), or one the size of a star, or larger. What could their limits be? Now imagine a mind not bound by the laws of physics as we know them -- for if they're "outside" the simulation of the universe as we know it, they'd not necessarily be limited by its physical laws. Really, at that point it's anything goes. Finally, consider that you, or any given human, or all of them, could simply be mistaken about what they think or observe. Just given that potential for error, anything could be possible.
3chelon 10y ago
But evolution would be part of the process. The programmer (or god) just sets the thing in motion. From an evolutionary biology perspective, evolution might be the main deal, the whole point of the simulation. It would make some sense, to create processes, systems and structures that no being could ever come up with. As far as I know, there are some creationists that believe something along these lines already. Dawkins used to call it smuggling God in the back door.
smrtinsert 10y ago
As a BS in bio as well I learned everything in biology arises from chemistry which arises from physics which can be explained (mostly?) with math. If that isn't abundantly clear on graduation your teachers did you a disservice. You don't have to design anything, it should just show up if its an accurate enough simulation.
- mkstowegnv 10y ago
  You are assuming unlimited computational resources. At some point the computer required is bigger than the universe and exceeds the limits of what our current knowledge of physics and cosmology allows us to speculate about in any kind of meaningful way. I actually believe that a computer with human level intelligence and consciousness will be possible - but only because it won't need to be as messy as real human minds. To paraphrase Hitchhikers Guide, biology is messy. Really messy. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly messy it is.
  - notduncansmith 10y ago
    If the idea is that our universe is a simulation then its state is, by definition, represented by a finite subset of the state of the simulating universe. In other words, yes, it would be a computer bigger than our universe, in the same way we simulate a universe smaller than ours on one of our computers today.
    - mkstowegnv 10y ago
      It's turtles all the way up. Or in this case It's Turing Machines all the way up.
- gregschlom 10y ago
  https://xkcd.com/435/ https://xkcd.com/435/
ajuc 10y ago
If we live in a simulation evolution is still much more probable explanation of the life we see than creationism. With big enough computer and interesting enough set of unerlying rules you can run a simulation to see what happens and there may be life somewhere in the simulated universe. We even do similar experiments [1] right now (but the rules are very simple for now, and the generated life isn't very impressive so far). I find this much more likely than a Programmer designing not only the universal rules (relativity, quantum nechanics, etc), but also small details of chemistry, biology, and all the organisms (if not all - how comes they look like they evolved - that's LOTS of stuff to fake). I can easily imagine humanity to be able to create simulation on big enough scale to create some artifical life in future. I can't imagine all the advances in math and chaos theory and fractal design and however to even call all that fields that would be required to design artifical life working in simulated universe "by hand" in such a way, that it seems it evolved from first principles. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_life
- mamcx 10y ago
  That only look logical because you assume the mind of the programmer is alike ours. Imagine it to be orders of magnitude superior. Not only to us. To any other one. To any other computer-alike. The ultimate compiler. Why waste to build a compiler when your mind is already the #1 thing ever?
  - ajuc 10y ago
    I assume simpler thing is more probable. Additionaly - if you can design top-down and bottom-up at the same time - it means you already know what will happen. Why even do the simulation in that case? So, if we're living in a simulation - no reason to bring Gods and ultimate whatevers into this - much more probably we're just their equivalent of the Conway's game of life: https://bitstorm.org/gameoflife/ https://bitstorm.org/gameoflife/
jackcosgrove 10y ago
> it is laughable that gods or computers could design or simulate the infinite levels of mind numbing complexity and unimaginable patterns that evolution has produced This sounds like the flip side of the creationist's claim that the universe was created by a deity because it's so complex. Neither is falsifiable.

pmoriarty 10y ago

A beautiful poem. But who says that the "creators" couldn't be evil, or amoral, or just have different ethics/morals than humans, or who don't think in terms of ethics/morals? Also, while a human mind might marvel at some level of complexity, there's no reason why a superhuman mind would have to. I mean, imagine a "brain the size of a planet" (like Marvin's in The Hitchhiker's Guide), or one the size of a star, or larger. What could their limits be? Now imagine a mind not bound by the laws of physics as we know them -- for if they're "outside" the simulation of the universe as we know it, they'd not necessarily be limited by its physical laws. Really, at that point it's anything goes. Finally, consider that you, or any given human, or all of them, could simply be mistaken about what they think or observe. Just given that potential for error, anything could be possible.

3chelon 10y ago

But evolution would be part of the process. The programmer (or god) just sets the thing in motion. From an evolutionary biology perspective, evolution might be the main deal, the whole point of the simulation. It would make some sense, to create processes, systems and structures that no being could ever come up with. As far as I know, there are some creationists that believe something along these lines already. Dawkins used to call it smuggling God in the back door.

smrtinsert 10y ago

As a BS in bio as well I learned everything in biology arises from chemistry which arises from physics which can be explained (mostly?) with math. If that isn't abundantly clear on graduation your teachers did you a disservice. You don't have to design anything, it should just show up if its an accurate enough simulation.

mkstowegnv 10y ago
You are assuming unlimited computational resources. At some point the computer required is bigger than the universe and exceeds the limits of what our current knowledge of physics and cosmology allows us to speculate about in any kind of meaningful way. I actually believe that a computer with human level intelligence and consciousness will be possible - but only because it won't need to be as messy as real human minds. To paraphrase Hitchhikers Guide, biology is messy. Really messy. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly messy it is.
- notduncansmith 10y ago
  If the idea is that our universe is a simulation then its state is, by definition, represented by a finite subset of the state of the simulating universe. In other words, yes, it would be a computer bigger than our universe, in the same way we simulate a universe smaller than ours on one of our computers today.
  - mkstowegnv 10y ago
    It's turtles all the way up. Or in this case It's Turing Machines all the way up.
gregschlom 10y ago
https://xkcd.com/435/ https://xkcd.com/435/

ajuc 10y ago

If we live in a simulation evolution is still much more probable explanation of the life we see than creationism. With big enough computer and interesting enough set of unerlying rules you can run a simulation to see what happens and there may be life somewhere in the simulated universe. We even do similar experiments [1] right now (but the rules are very simple for now, and the generated life isn't very impressive so far). I find this much more likely than a Programmer designing not only the universal rules (relativity, quantum nechanics, etc), but also small details of chemistry, biology, and all the organisms (if not all - how comes they look like they evolved - that's LOTS of stuff to fake). I can easily imagine humanity to be able to create simulation on big enough scale to create some artifical life in future. I can't imagine all the advances in math and chaos theory and fractal design and however to even call all that fields that would be required to design artifical life working in simulated universe "by hand" in such a way, that it seems it evolved from first principles. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_life

mamcx 10y ago
That only look logical because you assume the mind of the programmer is alike ours. Imagine it to be orders of magnitude superior. Not only to us. To any other one. To any other computer-alike. The ultimate compiler. Why waste to build a compiler when your mind is already the #1 thing ever?
- ajuc 10y ago
  I assume simpler thing is more probable. Additionaly - if you can design top-down and bottom-up at the same time - it means you already know what will happen. Why even do the simulation in that case? So, if we're living in a simulation - no reason to bring Gods and ultimate whatevers into this - much more probably we're just their equivalent of the Conway's game of life: https://bitstorm.org/gameoflife/ https://bitstorm.org/gameoflife/

jackcosgrove 10y ago

> it is laughable that gods or computers could design or simulate the infinite levels of mind numbing complexity and unimaginable patterns that evolution has produced This sounds like the flip side of the creationist's claim that the universe was created by a deity because it's so complex. Neither is falsifiable.