Big Bangs and Boltzmann Brains

This past week, I watched a fascinating TED Talk from cosmologist Sean Carroll. The question he poses is one that has puzzled scientists, philosophers, and theologians for millennia: Why does our orderly universe exist at all? The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy (disorder) tends to increase over time. This is intuitive to most of us; it’s easy to break an egg, but difficult to put a broken egg back together, because there are far more arrangements in which the pieces of the egg can be shattered than unbroken. As a result, things tend toward more chaos and disorder. But why was the universe ever orderly to begin with?

Carroll does a great job demolishing the explanation which I’ve always favored, that our universe is just a fluke. Even though individual atoms move in hard-to-predict ways we can nevertheless predict the behavior of macroscopic objects. For example, the molecules in the air and ground are constantly jostling one another, moving in every possible direction. But we don’t expect them to spontaneously arrange themselves into a car, because the probability of the molecules simultaneously moving into the correct position is extremely unlikely. But over a long enough period of time (vastly longer than the age of the universe) it will eventually happen by pure chance.

This same argument could be scaled up to the universe itself. Quantum mechanics indicates that particles are constantly popping in and out of existence at random. If you wait for an unimaginably long time, all of the particles that make up our universe will spontaneously pop into existence out of the nothingness and assemble themselves in an orderly way, in a random quantum fluctuation. Many have speculated that such a fluctuation caused the Big Bang. The length of time we would have to wait for such an event to occur is called the Poincarre Recurrence Time, and is estimated to be on the order of 10^10^10^10^10^1.1 years. I’ve always been fond of this idea, and it seems easy to invoke the Anthropic Principle here: Conscious observers will only be able to marvel over their own existence during those rare periods of time when the universe is in a low-entropy state by pure chance. But as Carroll points out (using an argument originally made by Ludwig Boltzmann over a hundred years ago), that isn’t necessarily the case. It would be far easier for an individual brain to form from a quantum fluctuation, than an entire universe with hundreds of billions of galaxies. If our existence was a fluke of an infinitesimally unlikely quantum fluctuation, we would predict that we should be lonely Boltzmann Brains floating through empty space, rather than inhabitants of an enormously complex universe. Since we do indeed live in a complex universe, Carroll therefore concludes that our universe is not merely a random quantum fluctuation.

But if the Big Bang wasn’t merely a freak random occurrence, what caused it? Unfortunately, neither physicists nor philosophers have a solid answer for this question. Carroll suspects that there must be a multiverse, in which unknown laws of nature occasionally give rise to low-entropy universes such as our own. He cites the work of Lee Smolin, who proposed the idea of the fecund universe, in which a Big Bang occurs at the singularity of a black hole and a new universe is created. This would solve the Boltzmann Brain paradox, because universes would constantly be spawning new universes through the laws of nature, but randomly-occurring Boltzmann Brains would still be unfathomably rare.

Another possibility is that our understanding of entropy is incomplete; perhaps our universe is indeed a random quantum fluctuation, but for reasons we don’t understand it’s easier for entire universes which can eventually produce conscious observers to randomly fluctuate into existence, than it is for Boltzmann Brains to do so. Perhaps the laws that govern the creation of universes tend to give rise to things like our own universe rather than Boltzmann Brains. Perhaps our universe is merely a holographic representation of a two-dimensional universe with different laws of physics than those we observe, and therefore entropy doesn’t apply at all. Perhaps our world is a simulated reality, and the simulators find complex worlds more interesting than lone Boltzmann Brains. Or perhaps we are indeed Boltzmann Brains, and for some reason don’t realize it.

Whatever the reason we live in an orderly universe, our understanding of physics is slowly making it possible to weigh the different theories to see which are the most likely. As our understanding of cosmology continues to improve, perhaps we will one day be able to understand what (if anything) caused the Big Bang. If Carroll’s multiverse theory turns out to be correct, perhaps it will vindicate the Hindu concept of cyclical creation and destruction: Universes are born, die, and are eventually reborn in different forms.

Watch the short version of Sean Carroll’s talk here. If you’re interested in the full hour-long lecture, watch it here.

Are we living in a simulation?

Are we living in a simulated reality? Transhumanist philosopher Nick Bostrom thinks so. He puts forth the following argument. One of the following three statements must logically be true: 1) Advanced civilizations can never develop simulated realities; 2) No advanced civilization would ever choose to develop simulated realities; or 3) Our own reality is almost certainly simulated.

There are a few circumstances in which Statement #1 could theoretically be true. Perhaps there are no other advanced civilizations in the universe. Perhaps advanced civilizations exist, but simulations are simply impossible. Or perhaps they are possible, but beyond the technological capacity of any species. I think Statement #1 is the least plausible of the three. As I mentioned in a previous blog post, even extremely pessimistic interpretations of the Drake Equation should have yielded at least one other advanced civilization somewhere in our universe. The technological barriers to creating a simulation seem very small. We already have rudimentary virtual reality technology, and there is no fundamental reason why we shouldn’t be able to create all-encompassing simulations within a few decades. Since we’re nearly able to create them already, it seems unlikely that there are no other civilizations in the entire universe that are a few mere decades ahead of us.

Statement #2 involves speculation into the motives of other civilizations, of which we can’t possibly know anything. However, we do know about our own civilization and what motivates us. If humans develop this technology within a few decades, we will almost certainly make use of it, creating thousands upon thousands of simulations for entertainment or research. Therefore it seems very likely to me that Statement #2 is false.

This leaves Statement #3. If we have concluded that Statements #1 and #2 are false, Bostrom reasons that Statement #3 must be true. Why? Because there will be an enormous number of simulated realities. The probability that we find ourselves in the one parent universe, as opposed to one of the many simulations, must be vanishingly small.

The Simulation Hypothesis fascinates me, because it is one of the few rationales for the existence of some form of a god which I, an agnostic, do not think is easily refutable. Let’s examine the common rebuttals of the simulation hypothesis to see how much merit they hold.

Some have questioned the assumption that there is one parent universe and many simulations. If there are many parent universes and many simulated universes, critics reason, then the probability that we are in a simulation would not necessarily be quite so high. But I disagree. What are the implications of many parent universes capable of sustaining life and technology? Presumably EACH of them would be running many simulations, and thus it would not affect the probability of our being in a simulation much at all.

The most serious problem I see with the Simulation Hypothesis is that it has no empirical basis, and falls apart under the scrutiny of Ockham’s Razor. There is absolutely no conclusive evidence that we are living in a simulation. There may be a few teasing clues (e.g. the quantum world behaves suspiciously differently when we aren’t watching), but nothing substantive. However, I can see no obvious flaw in the logic of the Simulation Hypothesis. This leads back to an old philosophical debate between empiricists and rationalists: Can we determine reality through sound logic, without empirical evidence? I tentatively plant my flag on the side of the rationalists. Scientists frequently adopt a rationalist mindset when interpreting the Drake Equation or formulating string theory (despite absolutely no evidence for extraterrestrials or strings), but switch over to empiricist mode for topics like philosophy or theology. This seems to be a product of cultural bias. In my view, while we should always seek out evidence wherever possible, sound logic is often a sufficient (if inferior) substitute.

At the end of the day, I tend to lean toward the conclusion that Bostrom is correct: We are probably in a simulation. What do you think? Let me know if/where you think the logic of the Simulation Hypothesis is flawed, or any other examples of clues that would suggest a simulated reality.