The Cosmic Computer, Simulated Realities, the Zero-Point

Field, and Touching What is Real

John Smith17 Feb 2013
Is the universe a giant cosmic computer? Are we living in a computer simulation? Can
consciousness be simulated? If reality is an illusion, how do we wake up to what is real?
This is an open-minded exploration of some of these issues.
QUANTUM PHYSICIST KEN WHARTON, in New Scientist magazi ne (9 Feb
2013), questions the assumption that physicists have made si nce the time of
Newton: that the universe works like a massi ve computer. Gi ven the state of the
world in one instant, and the laws that determi ne the behaviour of that world, we just
have to crunch the equations (either through solvi ng them or usi ng computer
simulation) to predict the future i n the next instant. There wi ll be a growing deviation
of the mathematical model from reality due to non-li near effects which makes
prediction impractical, but philosophically this is how scientists regard the future
as basically the solution to complex equations. Science is all about prediction. And
this is why findi ng the theory of everything is the holy grail for physicists: i n theory it
will allow us to map the whole future of the uni verse.
The question is this: is the uni verse actually doing what scientists are doing to create
the future? Is the uni verse crunching equations like a computer?
Of course the computer that the uni verse is worki ng out its future on is itself.
Differential equations model how forces influence things, for example, because of
the nature of those forces. Nature is not an expert at calculus; it does not need to be:
all nature needs to do is be what it is, and by bei ng what it is its future states will turn
out as if they had been calculated using calculus. But of course, no calculations were
actually involved. The system stumbles to the correct answer by its very nature. The
mathematics highlights salient features of the system, but there are other aspects of
the system that are not mathematically modelled either because they are too
complex or they are not rational, consciousness being the primary example.
Wharton describes another way of evaluating the future not by calculation but by
considering non-dynamic principles the 'Lagrangian approach'. Instead of seeing
how forces directly move things around, the Lagrangian approach focuses on more
abstract aspects of the system such as energy conservation, and use this to
determine intermediary states between two moments of the system on a timeline. In
this way, the system's dynamics is not directly calculated forces are ignored in
favour of energy. As forces are directional and energy is not, this greatly simplifies
the modelling of physical systems: the Lagrangian modelling is independent of
coordinate systems.
An example of the Lagrangian approach gi ven my Wharton is Fermat's pri nciple of
least time which states that a light ray travelli ng between two poi nts takes the
quickest route. Two poi nts are needed to define a route, but once those two poi nts
are defined, the path of the light can be calculated. Now this is not a calculation of
the future, but a calculation of how light travels between two points separated in time
and space. Gi ven this understanding, we can then make predictions on how light wi ll
travel in the future, always taking the quickest path. The Lagrangian approach takes
a higher, more abstract perspecti ve one that is more i ntuitive. And it is more
intuitive for a reason: it is actually the way that most non-scientists view reality.
Scientists tend to see the world as a computer because much of science is about
prediction and number crunching. Such a perspective is more logical and keeps the
door firmly shut to teleological perspectives where actions and processes are are
seen as a means to a specific end. Science hates teleology as end causes open the
possibility of things like destiny, God, intelligent design etc. So it is primarily this
avoidance of teleological perspecti ves that keeps the computer paradigm of reality
sovereign in the scientific world, and which makes Lagrangian approaches more a
case of ' useful mathematics' than a perspective on the actual nature of reality.
However, teleology comes back i n with quantum mechanics, because the final cause
of measurement collapses the wave function. In this case, a Lagrangian approach
might actually make more sense as it fits the quantum world the paradoxes of
quantum mechanics are only paradoxes if we view them from a Newtonian
computational perspective. Open the door to teleology and suddenly you have a
New Age movement usi ng quantum mechanics as justification of mi nd-over-matter
perspectives. No wonder the scientific community is unwilling to let go of the
computer paradigm of reality: it is all that keeps the lid on a veritable Pandora's box
of 'impossible' possibilities. (Wharton has proposed a Lagrangian type formulation of
quantum theory arxiv.org/abs/1301.7012.)
Non-scientists are quite happy with teleological perspectives and so most have not
adopted the universe-as-a-computer paradigm. Indeed, most ordi nary people
formulate reality from a Lagrangian perspecti ve because it is more i ntuiti ve and
natural to do so. Human minds do not number crunch the future, but use general
inductive and heuristic rules of thumb on specific aspects of systems that are then
used to reformulate the past, gi ving our lives a bedrock of logical consistency and
conti nuity. (In the same way, the brai n processes the image we see with our eyes to
make bli nd spots invisible and to turn the image the right way around.) These rules
of thumb are then projected i nto the future as expectations, but not i n a
computational manner.
Despite the fact that we generally use non-computer models of reality, most of us will
intellectually pay lipservice to the computer paradigm because: it seems more
rational and therefore intelligent; we live in a computer age and so the computer
perspective is a well worn groove; and we are bombarded with popular science
documentaries in the media that promote the universe-is-a-computer paradigm. So
even though the average person uses Lagrangian perspecti ves, the mind will label
those perspecti ves as computational because that is the pevailing scientific dogma.
Society has become addicted to seei ng the world like a giant computer; indeed,
some phi losophers and scientists actually thi nk that we are li ving in a massi ve
computer simulation.
The simulation idea was put forward by Swedish philosopher Nick Bostrom, who
realized that if computer processing power keeps growi ng, then at some poi nt future
generations will be able to simulate reality. Bostrom wondered if the reality that we
are experiencing could actually be such a simulation, and whether it would be
possible to tell. Considering the likeli hood that many simulations would be run by
those distant descendants, Bostrom concludes that it is probable that we are li ving i n
a simulation.
John Barrow, a british cosmologist working at the University of Cambridge, believes
that we would know whether we were in a computer simulation because simulations
require computational shortcuts, tricks and adjustments to make them feasible:
reality would be pixelated or grid-like i n order to make computer processing possible;
the physical constants and laws would need to be gradually adjusted i n time and
perhaps space i n order to keep the fi ne balance of forces needed to mai ntai n a
system from which complex lifeforms can develop; and every now and then there
might be tell-tale sudden glitches events which appear not to follow the laws of
physics as we know them.
Do such clues to simulation exist? Sudden glitches would be difficult to determi ne
because science, as it is carried out today, systematically dismisses and elimi nates
glitches in the belief that they are just noise in the system: every research scientist
knows that experimental results are not the smooth curves that appear in the
textbooks. Therefore, becoming aware of whether we are li vi ng i n a simulation would
require a whole re-frami ng of science which would encourage scientists not to
dismiss the noise i n the system, but to make a detailed examination of it. As Barrow
eloquently states: "...the flaws of Nature are as important as the laws of Nature"
Gradual changes i n the physical constants is certainly an idea that has been around
for a while as far back as the 1930s and it is one that the latest research
exami ning the light from quasars indicates may well be a reality. Of course, just
because the physical constants change over time (and over space) does necessarily
mean that we are livi ng i n a simulation. However, if the physical constants were
shown to be constant withi n experimental accuracy, i n both time and space, then
that would make it less likely that we are livi ng in a simulation.
And as for the pi xelated or grid-like nature of reality: scientific confirmation of this is
believed to require careful examination of cosmic ray i nteractions which, if reality is
grid-like, the resulting explosion will favour certain axes. As cosmic ray interactions
are uncommon, it will take time to confirm or deny the pi xelated nature of reality.
Silas Beane, a theoretical physicist at the University of Bonn recently wrote in a
recent interview in Focus magazine: "If we knew we were in a simulation it'd become
interesti ng to communicate with the simulators." (Perhaps we already have
labelli ng our simulators as gods?) The question is: would a simulator want to start
talking to his or her cyber creations? How would we all behave if we knew we were
just simulations in a computer program? The situation would be similar to that
depicted by the fi lm The Matrix, where we would be livi ng i n a dream world, except
we would personally have no existence i n the 'real' reality, so there would be no
waking up from the dream. Switch a simulation off and it just ceases to exist in one
instant. Unless the simulation is able to i nfluence some aspect of the real reality.
How could a simulation have any roots in reality? Only if i nformation processing
systems were able to access non-local aspects of reality, such as the zero-poi nt
energy field. Zero-point energy is the i ntri nsic energy of space caused by quantum
fluctuations which are believed to originate from higher dimensions. Quantum
systems tend to be non-local systems because they involve dimensional-
interactions. An analogy is the hologram: each part contains the image of the whole,
so the image is non-local in the actual hologram, and this process is the result of a
dimensional shift of i nformation from 2-dimensional space to 3-dimensional space.
With the zero-point field, however, i nformation is being stored in higher dimensions
outside normal space-time.
So if information processi ng systems such as computer simulators can entangle with
the higher dimensional zero-point field, then such a system can conti nue to exist
when the simulator is switched off. And if such a quantum entanglement does does
take place even with simulated systems, this would imply that the medium of
entanglement is i nformation rather than forces or energy.
Outside of simulated realities, havi ng the mi nd entangle with non-local quantum
fields is an established (albeit alternati ve) model of consciousness. With these
systems, energy and forces could be i nvolved i n the entanglement process, but it is
more likely to be information as well. Already, there is a truly scientific model of
consciousness that sees it as a non-local phenomena check out the Penrose-
Hameroff Orch OR model. This model does not contravene any known scientific laws,
but gives a mechanism for the survi val of death: when we die, the deteriorating
nervous system uncouples from the zero-point field which holds what is essential
to us as a person i n its safe keeping.
Working scientists may use quantum theory as a means of reality-modeling where
the Newtonian perspecti ve breaks down, but this does not extend to how they see
the world philosophically. Most quantum physicists are stuck philosophically i n the
Newtonian paradigm; the philosophy of quantum theory is seen as a fasci nating
oddity, somethi ng that has no bearing or relevance to everyday livi ng. And yet, the
irony of that is that the very awareness or consciousness of these scientists of all
sentient beings is likely to be a quantum process because the alternati ve is for
consciousness to merely be an illusion or an epiphenomena of local complex
information processing. And as illusions cannot affect matter, this would reject the
results of research at Princeton which conclusively shows that the mi nd can i nteract
with matter (see http://noosphere.princeton.edu/). Mi nds bleed into matter because
mind and matter are both i nformation systems that can entangle quantum
mechanically, and bearing i n mind that only things that are fundamentally identical
can quantum entangle, this means that the two are aspects of the same information
system.
So mind is matter, and matter is mind; both are manifestations of the high-
dimensional zero-poi nt field. And as computer simulations and neural networks that
entangle with the zero-point field are themselves manifestations of the zero-point
field, i n a sense the illusion of separate consciousness and thi ngs is merely a
thought emanati ng from a unified zero-point field. We are a quantum collective,
playi ng the game of i ndividuality. Separati on is a mass dream or hypnosis. But how
can the illusion of separation manifest from a unified system like the zero-point field?
This is where we come back to the paradox of quantum system: entanglement is not
annihilation; separation dances on a foundation of unity.
The ramifications of this type of quantum entanglement mean that consciousness or
awareness probably can be simulated. But not quite as most scientists thi nk
because, i n the case of a computer simulation that develops self-awareness, what is
actually going on is that the computer simulation has created a non-li near processi ng
system that is able to entangle with the zero-point field. In this way, the
awareness intrinsic to the zero-point field is co-opted by the simulation so that it
becomes self-aware. In the same way, our brai ns are also non-li near processi ng
systems that can entangle with the zero-point field, bri nging to the locality of our
bodies the non-local awareness of the higher dimensional quantum field.
So consciousness is not an i llusion. What is an illusion is the assumption that
consciousness is local to neural nets or complex information processing systems.
The illusion is that our mi nds are stuck in our heads, when i n fact consciousness is
non-local everywhere and nowhere. We fall for this illusion because we are stuck
in Newtonian thi nking where that consciousness is projected into a space-time
fantasy. Most of us cannot even begi n to understand what non-local awareness is all
about. And as concepts are usually themselves space-time simulations, we cannot
directly understand non-local awareness using concepts. The best we can do is use
labels or pointers like ' non-dual awareness' , ' non-local awareness' or the ' zero-poi nt
field'. But if we really want to understand non-local consciousness, we have to
experience it directly. We cannot thi nk ourselves there because thought is space-
time conditioned.
At the beginni ng of this essay, we questioned the idea that the universe works like a
giant computer usi ng the laws of physics to fast forward from the present to some
point i n the future. This is the prevaili ng scientific paradigm. Now we might begi n to
see that the reason nature appears mathematical is because mind and matter are
part of the same entangled system, so logical perception of reality is going to
naturally uncover logical patterns. And as mathematics is the language of logic,
those patterns can be modeled mathematically. In other words, the universe always
speaks to us i n our own language as we are energetically entwined. Mathematics,
therefore, is not the uni versal language of creation that scientists assume it to be: it
is merely the perspective of scientific i nvestigation reflected back to researchers.
Speak a different language and the uni verse will comply accordingly.
So the the question whether we are livi ng i n a computer simulation is actually not as
profound as we might believe because both ' reality' and simulations are equi valent
illusions. Both are distortions of a high-dimensional reality of quantum unity. This
may sound like New Age BS, but it is a view that has more scientific backing than the
idea that consciousness is an illusory byproduct of neural networks. That idea is just
insane and is increasingly looki ng like a religious belief system rather than a
scientific one.
When theoretical physicist, Silas Beane, wonders what it would be like
communicati ng with the simulators, all he actually has to do is to explore his own
consciousness. That is the key to experiencing both the reality behind the illusion of
space-time, and the reality behind the i llusion of simulation. We do not need to be
theoretical physicists working at CERN to find the answers to the ultimate questions
of existence; they are right i n the centre of our mi nds, in the primary awareness that
underlies all experience. This is the great mystery that so many are driven to find,
usually looking everywhere but right here and right now. We have been mesmerized
by the fantasy of ourselves withi n the illusion of space-time existence, and that
illusion has served only to spin more stories to explai n the story of that existence.
But there comes a time when many of us give up stories because we realize that the
truth, however terrible, is preferable to being psychologically comfortable. Mom's
apple pie may be i nviting, but eventually the story starts to taste a little sickly.
Realizi ng the illusory nature of space-time brings us to acknowledge that awareness
is the prime reality from which all the illusions of space-time systems, including our
own identity, spontaneously spri ngs. And it also means that we can use this
realization, if we want to, to alter those illusions. Just because basic awareness,
which accepts everythi ng as it is, and reality manifestation, which alters it, are
contradictory from a Newtonian perspecti ve, does not mean that they cannot coexist
from a quantum perspecti ve, just as the contradictory particle and wave nature of
light can also coexist, despite also bei ng contradictory from a Newtonian
perspective. The acceptance of reality and the creati ve manipulation of reality both
have validity in the quantum wholeness of the zero-point field.
However, the challenge of tryi ng to modify the illusion is that it is all too easy to end
up reinforcing the illusion because we are programmed to believe we have to 'do'
somethi ng i n space-time. Such 'doi ng', even in the imagination, only perpetuates the
space-time story, one that is underpinned by psychological polarity. For example, if
we are unwell and so try to focus on being well, the subconscious is aware of the
context of this focus on wellness which is that we are unwell i n the first place
and so every time we visualize wellness we are also unconsciously reinforci ng the
fact that we are unwell. And as subconscious tends to be more tenacious i n its focus
than the conscious mi nd, it is usually more than enough to minimi ze mi nd-over-
matter effects.
This is actually confirmed by experiments with random number generators which
report a ti ny but statistically significant effect of consciousness on matter. Therefore,
it is always essential to first focus on letting go of the story of who and what we are,
and what we deserve. For until we we really understand the contrived nature of our
waking space-time oriented consciousness, we will conti nue to ask the type of
questions that only bury us deeper i nto the illusion. In fact, the whole system is
gamed for the illusion, because so much of society has a vested i nterest i n
maintai ning the illusion.
So asking why uni verse is the way it is is not actually a particularly deep question, for
it will only lead us into explanations that support our illusory space-time perspectives.
Instead, it is far more insightful to ask who or what we are, and see where that
seemingly innocuous question takes us. That question is so profound that it is easy
to ask it insi ncerely, which will only lead the questioner back into stories: "Well I am
Jane Smith, a journalist living on 44 Carnaby Street, married to John Smith" But
when asked sincerely, looki ng past the labels that only serve to cover our ignorance,
we fi nd ourselves stepping back from the movie and start to become aware of our
basic nature, a nature that is outside space-time, a nature that is founded on basic
awareness. For it is i n the simple awareness of awareness that we can directly
experience the zero-point field, allowing us to let go of the movie characters we
mistake ourselves to be and to touch what is actually real.