The Simulation Hypothesis

pixelsThe universe is like a computer screen: if you zoom in far enough, you’ll find it’s made of pixels. The distance between these pixels is called a Planck length, and nothing can be smaller than that. Time is also discontinuous and moves in steps like the clock of a computer, Planck time. Our universe updates itself in each of these small time steps, and nothing happens in between. Given these facts, the hypothesis that we are living in a computer simulation may not sound so far fetched. Philosophers through the ages have seriously considered the idea that reality is an illusion, and the concept had a resurgence in 2003 when The Simulation Argument was formalized by Nick Bostrom.

neoTranshumanists believe that humans are clever enough to create technology someday that allows us to merge with advanced Artificial Intelligence and become super beings. It’s often overlooked that this may have already happened. If you believe that transhumanism is possible, and such super beings will want to create artificial life simulations, then it’s very likely you are already living in one. With all those super beings and simulations running, including simulations within simulations, the odds that we will be its progenitors is actually quite low. But, don’t worry about it, because there’s no way of really knowing if you are in a simulation or not anyway.

13th_floorYes, it’s a serious philosophical argument, but with many assumptions: 1) advanced civilizations don’t destroy themselves before going “transhuman”; 2) functionalism: consciousness can be simulated on a computer; 3) Moore’s Law holds true until creating high fidelity simulations is practical; 4) transhuman super beings will actually be interested in running such simulations. If you believe all these things, then you should probably accept that you, your life and loved ones, the world and universe, are all part of a simulation.

the_simsAccepting that the universe you live in is just a simulation shouldn’t really affect your outlook on life. All your assumptions about reality are still consistent. After all, physicists already discovered that matter is mostly just empty space and no one seemed to care. The Simulation Hypothesis does have some interesting consequences however: 1) reality is much bigger than you think, there is at least another whole universe containing the simulation; 2) some people you know might be “shadow people,” that is, simulated people who are simply programs and do not have conscious experiences; and 3) the super being(s) running it could get bored and unplug the simulation at any moment. Best of luck to you, simulated pre-transhuman!

More:

Posted in Philosophy, Sci-Fi, Simulations, Transhumanism | Tagged | Leave a comment

Artificial Altruism

ground_squirrel
A group of Belding’s ground squirrels is foraging in the hills of northern California. Suddenly, one of the squirrels notices a bobcat stalking them. According to Darwin’s theory of natural selection, one would expect this squirrel to have evolved a response mechanism to hide or run away in order to protect its genes. Instead, the squirrel issues an alarm call to the rest of his group, potentially saving others while putting himself at greater risk of being devoured and losing his genetic lineage. How can this altruistic behavior be explained by natural selection?

family_treeW.D. Hamilton pointed out in 1964 that such altruism actually does not contradict Darwin’s theory, when you recognize that related individuals carry copies of your genes. For example, siblings share 50% of the same genes on average. Therefore, if a squirrel sacrifices himself for two or more of his brothers, then his genes will still be more or less passed on in the same proportion. This is not only compatible with the theory of natural selection, but is in fact a natural consequence of it. Geneticist J.B.S. Haldane has famously joked, “Would I lay down my life to save my brother? No, but I would to save two brothers or eight cousins.” This concept of kin selection is more easily understood by taking a gene-centric view of evolution: genes care for themselves, occasionally at the cost of the individual.

alice_robotAlthough there is some controversy, the process of kin selection is generally accepted as valid. However, it is difficult to verify in nature, because it is difficult to measure. Hamilton’s Rule states that altruistic genes will proliferate specifically, when the cost to the giver divided by the benefit to the receiver is less than their relatedness. While relatedness is generally easy to determine, the reproductive costs and benefits of altruistic acts in nature are educated guesses at best.

An EPFL research group recently designed an experiment, which tested Hamilton’s Rule experimentally using artificial evolution, allowing the research team to set the reproductive cost/benefit values precisely. Robots were given the task of locating and moving objects to a nearby wall for a reward, then deciding whether to share the reward with others in the group or not. Each robot had a simple neural network which controlled their behavior and whose structure was determined entirely by their genetic makeup. The robots were then evolved in groups with varying levels of relatedness and cost/benefit reproduction ratios.



In every case, Hamilton’s Rule provided a surprisingly accurate prediction of when a robot would behave altruistically. In addition to experimentally verifying Hamilton’s Rule, the research also demonstrates that altruism does not require sophisticated cognitive abilities, as only 13 neurons with 33 connections between them were evolved to control each robot’s behavior.

Kin selection does provide a good explanation for altruism among social animals and eusocial insects such as ants or bees. Since individuals must be related for the model to work, it does not provide any satisfying explanation for other forms of altruism, such as cross-cultural human acts of kindness. The evolution of non-kin altruism falls under the much more controversial topic of group selection.

More:

Posted in Biology, Robotics | Leave a comment

The Art of Death

The introduction of physics engines into video games changed them forever. No longer did every event have to be scripted beforehand. The narrative could unfold in a dynamic 3D world that followed the laws of gravity and momentum, making the outcome more unpredictable and open-ended.

Even death scenes, which before had to be scripted, could now be computed on the fly. Something like falling from a scaffolding could be rendered in all its gruesome glory. Although this ragdoll physics removes the need to write a scripted death scene, it can occasionally produce unrealistic animations because ultimately, the ragdoll is just a lifeless bag of bones in a Newtonian universe.



Torsten Reil realized that there might be a market in giving these video game ragdolls some life, so he CoFounded Natural Motion in 2001 to produce the technology. The trick to making realistic ragdoll movement was to give them some tiny brains, created using artificial evolution in specific test scenarios, such as balancing and pain avoidance. The result is automatic life-like behavior that does not require scripting.



Take the situations of running off a cliff or being kicked down the stairs. Instead of just collapsing into a ragdoll, the victim will throw their arms out to regain balance, or at least flail about a bit before hitting the ground. In addition to death scenes, Natural Motion’s technology can render other “struggles against the environment”, such as getting kicked in the chest, jumping out of a moving car, getting shot multiple times, falling off a roof, or getting tackled. The tackling behavior was good enough to partner with a UK gaming company on the football game “Backbreaker” which uses Natural Motion’s Euphoria game engine.



Other games using Natural Motion game engines include “Grand Theft Auto IV”, “LucasArts’ Star Wars: The Force Unleashed”, and “Red Dead Redemption”.

More:

Posted in Art, Simulations, Video Games | Leave a comment

Bird Brains

bonobo_fishingThe ability to use tools distinguishes primates in the animal kingdom. Bonobos have been observed using sticks to collect termites as well as chimpanzees using stones to crack nuts. These tricks are passed down through the generations with elders demonstrating to the young how to do it. The ability to mimic the behavior of others allows the transmission of long-term cultural information.

But how did the first chimp conceive of cracking a nut? It was likely a happy accident because chimpanzees have great difficulty with tasks requiring innovation. The only species other than human observed to innovate tools is the New Caledonian Crow which has the highest brain-to-body mass ratio among birds.



In an experiment, a crow is given a piece of wire to fetch food from a vial. After several failed attempts, the crow bends the wire into a hook and obtains the food. Since the wire is an unfamiliar item not found in the wild, the ability to create a tool from it to solve a conceptual problem indicates that some aspects of higher level intelligence may not be restricted to the primate brain.

More:

Posted in Animal Intelligence, Biology | Leave a comment

AI Unleashed!

Science fiction has finally caught up with reality. Intelligent robots are everywhere now. So, how do we make sure they don’t become super-intelligent and enslave humanity? In a major step, the Worldwide Robotics Corporation had promised to install subservience chips into all its models protecting humans from harm. Congress recently blocked the company’s proposal by majority vote. It’s impossible to say what the future will hold now that Artificial Intelligence has no bounds:



More:

Posted in Culture, Robotics, Sci-Fi | Comments Off

Darkly Wise and Rudely Great

galileo_inquisitionImagine you are a great historical scientist and discover a disturbing truth about nature. Perhaps you discover that the world is not flat like a map, but is in fact round like a tomato. Or, maybe you discover that instead of the Earth having a special place at the center of the universe, it is a just an ordinary rock floating in space – distasteful and troubling revelations.

charles_darwinThe naturalist, Charles Darwin, was in such a situation in 1859. Although a devout Christian, Darwin’s pursuits led him to discover the mechanism by which life on Earth developed from a common ancestor, leading to the obvious conclusion that humans evolved from their closest relatives, the great apes. It was the most disgusting idea of the century, and he was personally troubled by it for the rest of his life.

The path Darwin’s life took made him a likely candidate to discover the mechanism of evolution. He had an obsessive-compulsive personality, avidly collecting and cataloging beetles and other insects around his home. And, his own grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, had already put forth the idea of common ancestry in a poem 60 years earlier:

erasmus_darwin

“The Temple of Nature”

Organic life beneath the shoreless waves
was born and nors’d in ocean’s pearly caves;
First forms minuk, unsceen by spheric glass,
move on the mud, or pierce the watery mass.
These, as successive generations bloom
New powers arquire and larger limbs assume
whence countless groups of vegatation spring.
And breathing realms of fin and feet and wing.

-Erasmus Darwin 1802

beagleMost auspiciously, his family was affluent. His father, frustrated with Charles’ unending curiosity and lack of academic direction, eventually agreed to let him travel abroad with the HMS Beagle even though he considered it to be a complete waste of time. Darwin’s writings of the journey solidified his position as a well respected author and a well connected member of the scientific community.

joseph_dalton_hookerHe became close friends with Charles Lyell and Joseph Dalton Hooker, the most influential geologist and botanist of his time respectively. Through Lyell, he came to see the natural world as a gradually changing process. Hooker was a trusted confidante with whom he could share some of his troubling revelations. After writing his first essay on natural selection, Darwin told Hooker it was like “confessing a murder”. Hooker gave him the calm, critical feedback Darwin needed to proceed.

alfred_russel_wallaceThe final push came from the naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace who wrote his own version of natural selection in 1858, ahead of Darwin. Both Darwin and Wallace had been inspired by the ideas of the Reverend Thomas Malthus who promoted the idea that population outstrips food supply, and both came to similar conclusions about how this creates selection pressure in nature. Hooker and Lyell arranged to have some of their ideas presented at a conference in 1858. This inspired Darwin to kick into high gear and finish “The Origin of Species” the following year, unleashing the most consistent and comprehensive explanation of natural diversity ever conceived, then and since.

Darwin did not doubt the literal translation of the Christian Bible as a young man, but bravely came to question the nature of the Christian God after observing nature in exacting detail. His attitude was well summarized by his observations of the Ichneumonidae wasp. He wrote:

“I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice.”

-Charles Darwin 1860

charles_darwinLike Copernicus’ realization 350 years earlier that the Earth was not at the center of the universe, Darwin’s theory of natural selection pressed heavily against the religious views of his time. Though the religious conflict was never fully resolved in his own mind, Darwin lived to witness his theory gain acceptance in the scientific world and among much of the general public before his death in 1882.

Darwin might have found some solace in the poet Alexander Pope who foresaw the impingement of science upon religion. In “An Essay on Man”, Pope describes Man as passionate and ignorant, existing between God and beast, and that science is a valuable tool for understanding our nature, but not useful in answering religious questions:

alexander_pope

Know then thyself, presume not God to scan,
The proper study of mankind is Man.
Placed on this isthmus of a middle state,
A being darkly wise and rudely great:
With too much knowledge for the Sceptic side,
With too much weakness for the Stoic’s pride,
He hangs between, in doubt to act or rest;
In doubt to deem himself a God or Beast;
In doubt his mind or body to prefer;
Born but to die, and reas’ning but to err;
Alike in ignorance, his reason such,
Whether he thinks too little or too much;
Chaos of thought and passion, all confused;
Still by himself abused or disabused;
Created half to rise, and half to fall:
Great lord of all things, yet a prey to all;
Sole judge of truth, in endless error hurl’d;
The glory, jest, and riddle of the world.

- Alexander Pope 1734

More:

Posted in Founding Fathers, Philosophy | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Avida

Self-replicating programs have been around for a while. The idea was first conceived by John Von Neumann in 1948 as a thought experiment. The first real instance was a game called Core War developed in the early 80s where programmers would write code to compete for sections of the computer’s memory. The best strategies were those that copied themselves, but these programs were fragile – change one piece of code and they would would cease to function.

Tom Ray’s Tierra in 1991 added some stability to the concept of mutation in a digital environment and showed that evolutionary processes previously only seen in nature can take place in the digital world. This eventually led to the “killer app” of self-replicating program research environments, “Avida”, developed by Charles Ofria at Michigan State University’s Digital Evolution Lab in 2000. Below is an animation showing successive generations of Avida organisms (Avidians) taking over the population as a sample evolution progresses:



At the 2010 Artificial Life XII conference in Odense, Denmark, the MSU team presented a paper describing some of their most recent work, including digital creatures that evolved the ability to follow paths along a grid. The environment was strewn with clues, signposts indicating which way the path would go. After tens of thousands of generations of evolution, the Avidians evolved reflex actions which successfully interpreted the signs as either “turn left” or “turn right”, giving them a survival advantage.

A program with just reflex actions can do quite a lot in a complex environment. What about using “volatile memory”, not just knee-jerk responses to the environment, but ones that depend on context? To encourage the evolution of volatile memory, the researchers put sign posts on the grid that symbolized “repeat last action”. The MSU team showed the Avidians were indeed able to take advantage of this information by evolving the ability to remember their last action.


avida

The ability to remember and recall a single variable in the environment appears trivial, especially for a computer program, but the significance of this research is that no one programmed this behavior. The code which navigates the path and uses volatile memory to its advantage bubbled up from the raw evolutionary stew acting against a carefully crafted artificial environment that allowed such evolutionary pressure to exist.

There are many interesting questions here: Under what circumstances does evolutionary pressure tend to favor the development of micro brain structures? How can we configure artificial environments to evolve more complex bottom-up brains? How does the evolution of such structures manifest in nature?

Avida is a robust open-ended research tool and it is likely we will see many more groundbreaking projects coming from this platform for some time.

More:

Posted in Emergence, Simulations | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The First Programmer

ada_lovelaceIn 1822, the Englishman Charles Babbage conceived of a mechanical device called the Analytical Engine, a theoretical automated abacus of sorts that could perform calculations while powered by a crankshaft. He never built his machine, but his close friend Ada Lovelace, a brilliant mathematician, understood the implications of Babbage’s work. She designed configurations of the machine for it to compute Bernoulli numbers, and so is credited as being the first software engineer.

More:

Posted in Founding Fathers | Tagged | Leave a comment

The Edge of Life

agent_smithIn 1971, computer networks were a relatively new concept, and so it occurred to Bob Thomas, an engineer working at BBN Tech that it would be neat to write a program than could traverse these networks on its own, forever copying itself onto other machines. The “Creeper” was born. Unknowing users would login to their terminals and be presented with the text “I’m the creeper, catch me if you can!”. After logging in, the program would attempt to connect to other machines on the network and move itself to a new system. Although the term “computer virus” had not yet been coined, Bob Thomas had managed to create the first one. He later wrote the complimentary “Reaper” program to seek out and shut down any Creeper programs out in the network.

mac_crashFrederick Cohen’s research at USC in 1983 brought the idea of a computer virus to the mainstream. He developed a program that attempted to spread by attaching itself to commonly used programs on a shared computer system. Within minutes, Cohen’s program would spread through the file system and gain complete control. Cohen believed that his program was alive in the literal sense because it met the requirements for life: it was a pattern capable of reproducing, it could make use of the metabolism of its host (the computer), and it adapted to its environment, installing itself opportunistically.

virusThe “Strong Claim” of Artificial Life says that any definition of life that includes all biological forms will necessarily include some computer-based systems as well, and these systems must therefore be considered actually alive. When the field of Artificial Life was formed in 1987, scientists agreed that computer viruses were indeed the most likely candidate to meet the strong claim. The opposite “weak claim” states that no matter how lifelike programs become, they will only ever be simulations of life, not instances of it.

More:

Posted in Biology, Philosophy | Tagged | Comments Off

Flock of Boids

Large flocks of birds appear to display a collective intelligence as they fly in an organized fashion with an apparently singular motive. Starlings in particular have been observed in flocks reaching hundreds of thousands of individuals generating amazing patterns in their group movement as shown in the video below.

Artificial Life researchers get very excited when complexity can be shown to emerge from very simple rules. One of the early examples of this was developed by Craig Reynolds as part of the 1987 SIGGRAPH conference with a program he called BOIDS. With BOIDS he demonstrated that flocking behavior can emerge naturally if every individual BOID followed three simple rules:

  • separation: steer to avoid collisions
  • alignment: head in the same direction as your neighbors
  • cohesion: head towards the center

BOIDS is an excellent example of emergent behavior, and since been adapted for use in computer graphics and special effects, its first use being the 1992 film “Batman Returns” to render bat swarms and penguin flocks.

More:

Posted in Animal Intelligence, Biology, Emergence, Simulations | Tagged | Leave a comment