We are a curious species, and our curiosity has led to some interesting ideas about our place in the universe: gods, evolution, quantum consciousness and the multiverse.
But perhaps the most curious of all is the idea that the universe isn鈥檛 real, and we live in a computer simulation created by a superior intelligence. In fact, according to Nick Bostrom, the philosopher who developed the idea, this is the most likely explanation for our existence.
Advertisement
Whatever the plausibility of this claim, it begs a tantalising question: could we ever create such a simulation? Could we become the gods of an artificial universe inhabited by creatures so smart they are able to question their own place in their universe?
The first requirement would be to create artificial intelligence that can carry out the same range of intellectual tasks as a human. According to cognitive roboticist , there鈥檚 no reason to think we can鈥檛, although it could take decades. 鈥淭here鈥檚 nothing magical about the brain; it doesn鈥檛 transcend physics. So of course it is possible to build a physical entity that can do anything we can do,鈥� he says.
But it will take more than brute computing power to build a brain. 鈥淲hat matters is structure, the pattern, the connections,鈥� says Peter Bentley at University College London, and we don鈥檛 yet have a detailed enough blueprint of the brain to reproduce that. But the European Union鈥檚 10-year Human Brain Project is working on it.
In the meantime, simpler brains are already being simulated. A project called OpenWorm is putting the finishing touches to a virtual version of the tiny nematode worm Caenorhabditis elegans, including its rudimentary nervous system of 302 neurons. This relative simplicity has allowed the connections between all its cells and its entire repertoire of behaviours to be mapped and simulated.
Is this taking us towards truly intelligent, life-like brain simulation? 鈥淚t could be a first step in that direction,鈥� says Stephen Larson, who runs the OpenWorm collaboration from San Diego, California.
But a virtual brain by itself isn鈥檛 going to learn anything, let alone question its place in its world. It needs a range of senses and an environment with which to interact. Current technology has a long way to go. 鈥淲e need a supercomputer just to compute the electron cloud around one atom. And there鈥檚 quite a lot of atoms in our world,鈥� says Bentley. Fortunately, the goal isn鈥檛 to recreate everything we know about the universe, but something rich enough for simulated beings to get their digital teeth into. We may also decide to bury some fossils in the simulated earth, to throw our creations off our scent.
If and when we get there, how should we treat such creations? What kind of gods would we be? Capricious ones, perhaps: there are web pages devoted to sadistic ways to video games.
But Old Testament-style wrath could give way to a gentler approach if we appreciated what we have created. 鈥淲e鈥檝e got to get away from the idea that computer software equals unreal,鈥� says Bentley. 鈥淪oftware is a bunch of electrons 鈥� a type of lepton 鈥� whizzing about in specific patterns within the electronics of your computer. And what are you? A bunch of quarks and leptons whizzing about in specific patterns.鈥�
Bostrom, at the University of Oxford, agrees. 鈥淚 think we should try to treat all sentient creatures compassionately, whether they are digital or not,鈥� he says.
Before you get dizzy with the prospect of omnipotence, bear in mind where we started: there鈥檚 a better-than-evens chance that you and everything you know is already part of a simulation. That wouldn鈥檛 stop us creating a simulation within our simulation, and so on ad infinitum. But it puts a different perspective on our place in the grand scheme of things.
Read more: 鈥�The human universe: Exploring our place in space鈥�
This article appeared in print under the headline 鈥淐ould we become gods?鈥�
