Jack of All Existences, Master of None

The first philosophy (Metaphysics) is universal and is exclusively concerned with primary substance. And here we will have the science to study that which is just as that which is, both in its essence and in the properties which, just as a thing that is, it has. That among entities there must be some cause which moves and combines things. There must then be a principle of such a kind that its substance is activity.

- Aristotle

From Freddie Mercury to Aristotle: How’s that for a turnaround? What Aristotle lacks in the tight-trouser department he more than makes up for with philosophical musings, although I’m sure his tunic was just as ill-fitting as Freddie’s ball-strangling polyester efforts.

What I like about the above quote is it implies that nothing just happens, that there is an underlying reason to what we perceive as reality. What this reason is has been under discussion for the past two millennia or more, but, whatever it is, humanity has endeavoured to quantify its effects. General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics can pretty much explain the effects of all aspects of reality from the Planck to the inter-galactic scales in terms of energy, forces and mass. Why these properties of reality exist, or even if they exist at all outside of illusions of perception, will probably never be known.

So, what we have is a set of rules derived from first principles that exhibit a reasonable fit to empirical data. Some of these rules are hideously complex; some are elegantly simple. In fact, the simpler the equation, the more profound its connotations. It is thought amongst physicists that the Grand Unified Theory of Everything (GUTE) will be a one-line equation of immense minimalism, exuding elegant beauty in its effortless insight. Like the most beautiful woman in the world looking out from the page with come-to-bed eyes while revealing a hint of alluring stocking welt.

Needless to say, that’s a good thought (as is the GUTE), but why do these rules exist? Why is it that I plummet to the ground from the highest branch in the tree? Why is it that whenever I put my hand onto the hotplate it burns? Why is it that they don’t teach you these things from the minute you are born rather than waiting ten years? There are numerous schools of thought on this metaphysical conundrum, but one that intrigues me isn’t actually as far fetched as it first seems, mathematically at least.

What if we’re all an advanced computer simulation obeying a series of external commands that masquerade as our thoughts? And yes, I can hear your anguished cries of The Matrix. I actually didn’t mind the film too much save for Keanu Reeves' acting, which can only be described as mesmerisingly feeble, but disregard that two hours of Hollywood saccharine and think about what we perceive as our universe really being a simulation. It would certainly explain why everything obeys physical laws (even if we haven’t quite figured them out exactly yet) although I doubt why any “programmer” would create the French, even as a tool of torment.

The notion becomes more palatable when one considers the nature of infinity. Infinity is assigned its own subset of mathematics and can become surprisingly complex when one scratches below the surface. Everybody knows of at least one infinity – counting for eternity is a common example – but infinity is a lot more than that. In fact, it’s infinitely more than that. Literally. For infinity is defined as the infinite set of subsets that are themselves infinite, i.e. there are an infinite number of infinities. It gets worse, dear reader: Not all infinite sets are of the same magnitude – in other words some infinities are larger than others. For example, the infinite set of even numbers is the same size as the infinite set of odd numbers, but half the size of the infinite set of whole integers. It gets a lot worse, but that headfuck is for a dank corner of the Queens Arms whilst inebriated. If you’re lucky I’ll even try to explain what a blast beat is, including a poorly executed physical demonstration utilising pens half-inched from the bookies next door and a couple of well placed beer mats.

Anyway, my point is that due to the nature of infinity, it is impossible to discount the suggestion of our being a computer simulation. Give a monkey a typewriter and an infinite amount of time and eventually that little Frenchman, I mean monkey, will produce enough random keystrokes to replicate the entire works of Shakespeare. In order. So why is it infeasible to suggest that in an infinite universe with an infinite number of civilisations, that an infinite number of these infinite civilisations obtain a state of technological advancement that would allow the creation of a digital simulation that mimicked reality exactly?

Of course, mathematically speaking, it isn’t infeasible to suggest so, but what does this mean for our definition of reality? Well, it follows that there must exist a reality (or at least a perceptive interpretation of reality) somewhere outside of the simulation on which the simulation is based. This begs the question of being able to tell the difference in any case if the simulation mirrors reality so closely. I would imagine it to be akin to waking subsequent to dreaming; after all, our dreams feel as real as being awake whilst we are experiencing them.

Maybe we are real and our reality does actually exist, but on the other hand, maybe we don’t exist and we merely comprise an almost infinite array of zeros and ones. In either case, it feels convincingly good, so let’s just get on with whatever form of existence we are experienceing and quit the philosophical discussion – we’ll leave that for the academics that are too lazy to go out and get a proper job!