In previous posts in this blog I have mentioned my experiments on artificial life: the simulation in a computer of processes similar to those that take place in living beings. Artificial life should not be confused with synthetic life: construction of artificial living beings in the laboratory.
One of the most used tools in artificial life (and in other related fields) are genetic algorithms, which simulate biological evolution within the computer, and make it act on the entities that are the subjects of the research. In these experiments, a mixture of chance and necessity (the title of Monod’s book mentioned in the previous post) is used. Chance is usually applied with a pseudo-random number generator that modifies the operation of the rest of the algorithm, which represents necessity.
My artificial life experiments are
designed by me. They are a clear example of design. But this design uses
chance; or, if you want, pseudo-chance. But Gregory Chaitin proved in 1975 that
chance and pseudo-chance are indistinguishable (see this
post). Therefore, we can use both terms interchangeably.
My situation regarding my artificial life
experiments is special, privileged. While one of them is running, I can stop
it, analyze the state of the system and act accordingly, modifying the conditions.
To do this, I can modify the state of one or more of the simulated entities
(which would be equivalent to a miracle), or I can alter the operation of the
random number generator, skipping one or more of these numbers, forcing a new random
starting point, or carrying out many other actions that modify the evolution of
the system and would be undetectable for the hypothetical thinking beings
within the system (and this would be equivalent to the action of Providence).
Suppose that at some point in the future
intelligent beings would emerge in one of my artificial life experiments. Don’t
be afraid, if that were possible, it’s so far away that I’m sure I won’t be
able to see it, although the idea has helped me to write a science fiction
novel: Jacob’s
Ladder. But let’s do that thought experiment. What would those intelligent
beings think about the world in which they would have emerged? That their world
had been designed, or that it was the result of chance?
I don’t care what they’d think. From my
privileged position, I know the answer to that question: their world would have been designed, and chance is one of
the tools of that design.
Let’s now move on to our own world. There
are intelligent beings (us) and we ask ourselves the same question as my
hypothetical simulated intelligent beings. There are only three possible
answers:
- The universe is the result of chance.
It remains to explain how something can arise by chance.
- The universe has been designed and created by God.
In this case, what we call chance may not be chance for God. Or perhaps yes.
If I can use chance in my designs, why wouldn’t God be able to do it?
- The universe has been designed by intelligent beings other than
God. In other words: we live in a simulation. This
is Nick Bostrom’s idea. I wrote a
post in this blog about that proposal.
 |
| Thomas Nagel |
I don't think my readers will doubt which
solution I defend. In my opinion, the first does not solve anything, and the
third is a simple flight of fancy, impossible to prove. In the cited post I
pointed out that Bostrom’s approach is wrong, because he did not consider a
much more probable possibility than those he did take into account. But there
are those who prefer this alternative, for two reasons: because they like
science fiction; and because they are willing to accept anything rather than
the existence of God. Thomas Nagel said it in his book The Last Word: I want atheism to be true… It isn’t just that I don’t believe
in God and, naturally, hope that I am right in my belief. It’s that I hope that
there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to
be like that.
It isn’t possible to dialogue and reach
agreements when both parties assume totally contradictory starting premises.
Thematic thread on synthetic and artificial life: Previous Next
Manuel Alfonseca
No comments:
Post a Comment