Here's an idea.
Maybe the Earth is computing the answer
to life, the universe, and everything.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
If you're unfamiliar with Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's
Guide to the Galaxy, the comedic sci-fi radio show,
turned to novels, turned to miniseries, turned to movie,
turned-- well, you get the idea.
First off, you gotta promise that, as soon
as this video is over, you're going to go read some of it.
It's so good.
But more importantly, there is some stuff
that we have to get straight before we go much further.
So there are slight spoilers ahead,
but also, you're 20 years late, so, yeah.
So that being said, anyone familiar with the paperwork
process necessary save a Volcoms'
mother from the Bugblatter Beast of Traal
can set their Infinite Improbability Drive
to these coordinates.
We'll meet you there.
So The Hitchhiker's Guide is about, roughly speaking,
everything-- like the universe, its inconsistencies,
confusiousity, and its hilarious mysteries.
One of those hilarious mysteries,
perhaps the most important one, is
about the question of life, the universe, and everything.
Because of the imaginations of a very smart computer called Deep
Thought, we know the answer to that question
is 42, which isn't too helpful, is it?
The problem is that we know the answer, 42,
the actual question.
Because the question of life, the universe, and everything
isn't actually a question, is it?
No, it isn't.
It's dreadful.
So here we are, armed with the most powerful information
in the galaxy, with no idea how to use it.
How do we suss this out?
Simple-- build another computer, more powerful
than the first one, which gave us the answer
to give us the question.
Ah-ha!
Splendid.
And that computer, well it just happens
to be Earth, which, in The Hitchhiker's Guide
is destroyed to make way for a hyperspace bypass
before its final calculations are done,
but that's of secondary importance right now.
What is of primary concern is what
it would mean if Douglas Adams were onto something.
What if the Earth, and the rest of the universe,
for that matter, were a computer.
I mean, I know it sounds batty, but battier things are true.
Angler fish are thing, and, uh, Arrest Development is back.
So how might it be that the universe computes?
Well, let's start easy.
What does a computer do, exactly?
It operates on information, it engages
in processes-- mechanical and electrical--
that make decisions.
Those decisions are based on programs, which at their heart,
are bits-- just little 1s and 0s.
The output of the program is fed back into the system,
and the information processing and creation continues.
What, by comparison, then, is the universe?
Well, it's nothing if not information, right?
Sure, it's galaxies and stars and planets and dolphins
and towels, but all of those things
are just made up of atoms, which themselves are made up
of particles in different states that describe all of the stuff.
Furthermore, the universe is certainly
the processes which create and operate
on all of that information.
#Phisics.
Now, this whole idea really starts
to take shape once we get down to the nitty gritty, or itty
bit-y, as the case may be-- emphasis
being on bi-t-- bit-ty.
[BA-DUM CHING]
Remember all of those 1s and 0s?
As it turns out, the way they behave inside a normal computer
is pretty comparable to the way atoms
behave inside a universe computer.
Now, it's true that our ontological metaphors
tend to follow whatever the in vogue technology of the day is.
The human brain and the universe have variously
been described as books and libraries, clocks
and factories.
But this one, the computer, has some pretty convenient
correlations.
Like how the universe and its atoms, much like a computer,
have a binary foundation.
Theoretical physicist and Niels Bohr bro, John Wheeler,
put it like this.
"It is not unreasonable to imagine that information
sits at the core of physics," in the same way
"it sits at the core of a computer.
It from bit.
Otherwise put, everything 'it'-- every particle,
every field of force, even the space-time continuum itself--
derives its function, its meaning,
its very existence entirely from the apparatus-elicited answers
to yes or no questions, binary choices, bits."
'It from bit' has become a kind of mantra
in a sometimes controversial line of thinking,
variously called digital physics,
digital philosophy, digital ontology,
digital-- so on and so forth.
These theories hold that nature performs
or is the result of calculation, meaning that nature, the Earth,
maybe even our brains are deterministic.
They are programmed.
They are the moving parts or the result
of a process, which is run by a program that has a goal.
This idea is huge, and we can't give at the time it deserves.
So if you want to more, we'll put a reading list
in the doobly doo.
Now, assuming that you're sufficiently convinced of,
or intrigued by, the idea of the universe computer,
we can start talking about the interesting stuff,
like, what is it computing?
What is the goal of the program?
Maybe it is the heat death of universe.
Its goal probably isn't the computation
of the ultimate question, whose answer is 42.
But what it is, it involves us-- like, people.
Douglas Adams even described Earth through deep thought
as a computer of such infinite and subtle complexity
that organic life itself will form
part of the operational matrix.
So that could mean two things.
Maybe that organic life is passive,
and the simulation argument is right,
and we're all currently plugged into the matrix,
and not actually here, and there's
nothing you can do about it, so just don't panic.
Or it could mean that organic life
is active in that calculation.
Meaning, we live in or are a discretized operationally
complex system composed not of matter and energy
but of bits and algorithms.
And that life, and all of its endeavors-- like science, art,
getting really good at bocce, Douglas Adams positing
that the answer to life, the universe, and everything
is 42-- are all just a pursuit of whittling down our theories
about the way the world works into computable, indisputable
truths.
The purpose of the program, then,
being to understand the program.
Or maybe the universe isn't a computer, or on
the backs of an infinite number of turtles,
or squeezed out by the Great Green Arkleseizure.
But really, just the universe.
And of course, if we could figure out
how to ask that bowl of petunias why it thought, "oh no,
not again" before crashing into the surface of Magrathea--
(FROM VIDEO) Oh no, not again.
--we wouldn't be in this predicament--
[CRACK]
--at all.
(FROM VIDEO) If we knew exactly why the bowl of petunias
had thought that, we should know a lot more about the universe
than we do now.
What do guys think?
Is the universe of computer, and if so, what's it computing?
Let us know in the comments.
And if you look up "subscribing to Idea Channel,"
in The Hitchhiker's Guide, it reads, mostly harmless.
Oh, how do I love math, let me count the-- oh, wait, I can't.
Numbers aren't real.
Let's see what you guys had to say
about the existence of math.
First of all, to all of our international subscribers,
thank you for suffering through an entire video where
I say math and not maths, that's just how we do it here
in 'merica.
Of course, your way makes a little bit more sense.
HTH128 and a couple other people point out
that math must be an objective part of the universe,
because it comes from consciousness, which
is a part of the universe.
But I don't know whether or not consciousness' existence is
clearly non-metaphysical.
I think it's not-- not that cut and dry.
ManekenT points out that they agree with the idea
that math is a kind of language that we
use to describe the universe, and goes one step further
say that it's a kind of uber language,
because it's shared the world over,
which is a very good point.
Dave Mantel points out that Brady Haran
of Numberphile frame also made some videos
approaching these topics.
We will put some links to those in the description.
They are awesome, and you should watch them.
RainAngel111 asks whether or not there's
another language other than mathematics that we can
use to describe the universe.
Um, I would point you towards Hartry Field, who
published something called, Science Without Numbers,
which sort of describes itself.
I've seen it described as, um, not easy or pleasant,
but possible, and that's what's important.
MrBrionman points out the embodied argument
for mathematics, that we have a base 10 system
because we have 10 fingers.
This actually factors really heavily
into the work of Lakoff and Nunez,
who were featured in the episode.
Though this is a true for measuring lengths in America,
we user base-- ionno.
Uh, yes, the new pronunciation for "Zaif," in case anyone
is wondering, here's is the IPA for it, here's how it's spelt.
Let's rotate the board.
This one?
You're welcome.
To smhjerry, whoa!
Questions that shouldn't be asked?
I think we might just have to agree to disagree
on the existance of those.
But as far as the relationship between science and philosophy,
I will leave you with some words, uh, spoken
by the great Ray Kurzweil.
"It is precisely because we cannot resolve issues
of consciousness entirely through objective measurement
and analysis that a critical role exists for philosophy."
This week's episode was brought you
by the noses of these talented folks, who
were up against the grindstone.
Our Tweet of the Week comes from Cadell Last,
two points is towards a Margaret Wertheim piece
about the limits of physics.
It's a long one, but it's a good one.
[MUSIC PLAYING]