A physics professor of at the University of Minnesota, Duluth believes the entire universe might be a neural network. If so, who's behind the brain?
I recently had a conversation with a young atheist friend of mine about the nature of God. He was upset that some "fundamentalist" "Christian" (both quoted terms have been divided intentionally) was making decidedly un-Christian remarks on social media, and it had gotten his goat. I told him for my money, fundamentalism has about as much in common with orthodox Christianity as a shoe does to a flip-flop; but this is only my opinion of course. How we see (or don't see) God is a very private and primal affair.
Early civilizations saw the divine in the form of many gods cast as the personifications of nature; later religions melded a singular consciousness with alternate forms, embodiments, or emanations. Some see God as only one entity, solo and indivisible.
Whether we see an old man, or a dung beetle; a super nova, or nothing at all, a great deal of time and effort has been put in by priests, philosophers and artists to try to give us an insight into the divine and their appearance. Wouldn't it be shame that after all that work, all they really needed was a mirror?
Intentionally or not, Vitaly Vanchurin, a professor of physics at the University of Minnesota in Duluth, may have inadvertently put philosophers on the path to obsolescence. Last August, Professor Vanchurin published an incredible paper entitled “The World as a Neural Network” that was explored this week by Tristan Greene at TNW (The Next Web) entitled "New research indicates the whole universe could be a giant neural network." One extract from the article drew my particular attention:
The root problem with sussing out a theory of everything – in this case, one that defines the very nature of the universe itself – is that it usually ends up replacing one proxy-for-god with another. Where theorists have posited everything from a divine creator to the idea we’re all living in a computer simulation, the two most enduring explanations for our universe are based on distinct interpretations of quantum mechanics. These are called the“many worlds” and “hidden variables” interpretations and they’re the ones Vanchurin attempts to reconcile with his “world as a neural network” theory.
Mr. Greene goes on to report the physicist's conclusion:
In this paper we discussed a possibility that the entire universe on its most fundamental level is a neural network. This is a very bold claim. We are not just saying that the artificial neural networks can be useful for analyzing physical systems or for discovering physical laws, we are saying that this is how the world around us actually works. With this respect it could be considered as a proposal for the theory of everything, and as such it should be easy to prove it wrong. All that is needed is to find a physical phenomenon which cannot be described by neural networks. Unfortunately (or fortunately) it is easier said than done.
My own take on this is rather straight forward since it very much fits my own personal vision of God. Although I am a Roman Catholic and follow a great many of my faith's beliefs and practices, I have never thought of God as being either omnificent nor omnipotent. Blasphemy though this may be, the bible (if read objectively) backs-up this vision more than we might like to admit; as does unfolding science.
Look for example the way the book is edited: Genesis (the Beginning) to Revelation (the end, where we discover why the story was told in the first place). Revelation for whom? Us? Perhaps, but I think it is more like"us" as in we and God together back at the singularity from which we all began; a concept more like nirvana than any celestial scene of rolling clouds, harps, and bright light.
Like Karen Armstrong in her excellent book, A History of God, I find God's behavior in the Old Testament appalling. Again, if we look critically at what we are reading, God comes over less like an omniscient, omnipotent divinity than as a truculent teenager with global mood swings This incongruity makes sense when we pause for a moment and savor the idea that the universe is a neural network. If we do, it's no wonder God evolves from Genesis to Revelation; God like us, is evolving from our shared experiences and the innumerable transmutations the quantum universe can provide.
All of the above is not meant to offend anyone's vision of God, but rather, to illustrate my own. The real nugget of this conversation is this: will humankind be ready if and when science itself discovers God or, more likely, that all consciousness is merely a manifestation of one consciousness? Are we all a vast dream of ourselves? Are we the id or perhaps the subconscious of some other entity's thoughts? Are we collectively the little voice in somebody's head?
Uniting relativity and quantum physics would be a major accomplishment; the holy grail of physics as it were. But if we explained the reason for life, the origin of consciousness, and the existence of God, all into the bargain as well; well, what a coup that would be!
This week in The Socratic Review Daily Edition will be looking at the question Will Science Ultimately Lead Us to God? in our In-depth Perspectives feature. We hope you will find it interesting and provocative.
Comments