The Age of Spiritual Machines: When Computers Exceed Human Intelligence (10 page)

THE END OF THE UNIVERSE

 

What does the Law of Time and Chaos say about the end of the Universe?

One theory is that the Universe will continue its expansion forever. Alternatively, if there’s enough stuff, then the force of the Universe’s own gravity will stop the expansion, resulting in a final “big crunch.” Unless, of course, there’s an antigravity force. Or if the “cosmological constant,” Einstein’s “fudge factor,” is big enough. I’ve had to rewrite this paragraph three times over the past several months because the physicists can’t make up their minds. The latest speculation apparently favors indefinite expansion.

Personally, I prefer the idea of the Universe closing in again on itself as more aesthetically pleasing. That would mean that the Universe would reverse its expansion and reach a singularity again. We can speculate that it would again expand and contract in an endless cycle. Most things in the Universe seem to move in cycles, so why not the Universe itself? The Universe could then be regarded as a tiny wave particle in some other really big Universe. And that big Universe would itself be a vibrating particle in yet another even bigger Universe. Conversely, the tiny wave particles in our Universe can each be regarded as little Universes with each of their vibrations lasting fractions of a trillionth of a second in our Universe representing billions of years of expansion and contraction in that little Universe. And each particle in those little Universes could be ... okay, so I’m getting a little carried away.

How to Unsmash a Cup

 

Let’s say the Universe reverses its expansion. The phase of contraction has the opposite characteristics of the phase of expansion that we are now in. Clearly, chaos in the Universe will be decreasing as the Universe gets smaller. 1 can see that this is the case by considering the endpoint, which is again a singularity with no size, and therefore no disorder.

We regard time as moving in one direction because processes in time are not generally reversible. If we smash a cup, we find it difficult to unsmash it. The reason for this has to do with the second law of thermodynamics. Since overall entropy may increase but can never decrease, time has directionality. Smashing a cup increases randomness. Unsmashing the cup would violate the second law of thermodynamics. Yet in the contracting phase of the Universe, chaos is decreasing, so we should regard time’s direction as reversed.

This reverses all processes in time, turning evolution into devolution, Time moves backward during the second half of the Universe’s time span. So if you smash a favorite cup, try to do it as we approach the midpoint of the Universe’ s time span. You should find the cup coming together again as we cross over into the Universe’s contracting phase of its time span. Now if time is moving blackward during this contracting phase, what we (living in the expanding phase of the Universe) look forward to as the big crunch is actually a big bang to the creatures living (in reverse time) during the contracting phase. Consider the perspective of these time-reversed creatures living in what we regard as the contracting phase of the Universe. From their perspective, what we regard ad the second phase is actually their first phase, with time going in the reverse direction. So from their perspective, the Universe during this phase is expanding, not contracting. Thus, if the “Universe will eventually contract” theory is correct, it would be proper to say that the Universe is boudned in time by two big bangs, with events flowing in opposite directions in time from each big bang, meeting in the middle. Creatures living in both phases can say that they are in the first half of the Universe’s history, since both phases will appear to be the first half to creatures linging in those phases. And in both halves of the time span of the Universe, the Law of Entropy, the Law of Time and Chaos, and the Law of Accelerating Returns (as applied to evolution) all hold true, but with time moving in opposite directions.
⁶

The End of Time

 

 

 

 

And what if the Universe expands indefinitely? This would mean that the stars and galaxies will eventually exhaust their energy, leaving a Universe of dead stars expanding forever. That would leave a big mess-lots of randomness-and no meaningful order, so according to the Law of Time and Chaos, time would gradually come to a halt. Consistently, if a dead Universe means that there will be no conscious beings to appreciate it, the both the Quantum Mechanical and the Eastern subjective viwpoints
⁷
appear to imply that the Universe would cease to exist.

In my view, neither conclusion is quite right. At the end of this book, I’ll share with you my perspective of what happens at the ends of the Universe. But don’t look ahead.

 

NOW ON THIS TIME THING, WE START OUT AS A SINGLE CELL, RIGHT?

 

 

That’s right.

 

AND THEN WE DEVELOP INTO SOMETHING RESEMBLING A FISH, THEN AN AMPHIBIAN, ULTIMATELY A MAMMAL, AND SO ON—YOU KNOW ONTOGENY RECAPITULATES—

 

Phylogeny, yes.

 

SO THAT’S JUST LIKE EVOLUTION, RIGHT? WE GO THROUGH EVOLUTION IN OUR MOTHER’S WOMB.

 

Yes, that’s the theory. The word
phylogeny
is derived from phylum ...

 

BUT YOU SAID THAT IN EVOLUTION, TIME SPEEDS UP. YET IN AN ORGANISM’S LIFE, TIME SLOWS DOWN.

 

Ah yes, a good catch, I can explain.

 

I’M ALL EARS.

 

The Law of Time and Chaos states that, in a process, the average time interval between salient events is proportional to the amount of chaos in the process. So we have to be careful to define precisely what constitutes the process. It is true that evolution started out with single cells. And we also start out as a single cell. Sounds similar, but from the perspective of the Law of Time and Chaos, it’s not. We start out as just one cell. When evolution was at the point of single cells, it was not one cell, but many trillions of cells. And these cells were just swirling about; that’s a lot of chaos and not much order. The primary movement of evolution has been toward greater order. In the development of an organism, however, the primary movement is toward greater chaos—the grown organism has far greater disorder than the single cell it started out as. It draws that chaos from the environment as its cells multiply, and as it has encounters with its environment. Is that clear?

 

UH, SURE. BUT DON’T QUIZ ME ON IT. I THINK THE GREATEST CHAOS IN MY LIFE WAS WHEN I LEFT HOME TO GO TO COLLEGE. THINGS ARE JUST BEGINNING TO SETTLE DOWN NOW AGAIN.

 

I never said the Law of Time and Chaos explains everything.

 

OKAY, BUT EXPLAIN THIS. YOU SAID THAT EVOLUTION WASN’T VERY SMART, OR AT LEAST WAS RATHER SLOW-WITTED. BUT AREN’T SOME OF THESE VIRUSES AND BACTERIA USING EVOLUTION TO OUTSMART US?

 

Evolution operates on different timescales. If we speed it up, it can be smarter than us. That’s the idea behind software programs that apply a simulated evolutionary process to solving complex problems. Pathogen evolution is another example of the ability of evolution to amplify and focus its diffuse powers. After all, a viral generation can take place in minutes or hours compared to decades for the human race. However, I do think we will ultimately prevail against the evolutionary tactics of our disease agents.

 

IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF WE STOPPED OVERUSING ANTIBIOTICS.

 

Yes, and that brings up another issue, which is whether the human species is more intelligent than its individual members.

 

AS A SPECIES, WE’RE CERTAINLY PRETTY SELF-DESTRUCTIVE.

 

That’s often true. Nonetheless, we do have a profound species-wide dialogue going on. In other species, the individuals may communicate in a small clan or colony, but there is little, if any, sharing of information beyond that, and little apparent accumulated knowledge. The human knowledge base of science, technology, art, culture, and history has no parallel in any other species.

 

WHAT ABOUT WHALE SONGS?

 

Hmmm. I guess we just don’t know what they’re singing about.

 

AND WHAT ABOUT THOSE APES THAT YOU CAN TALK TO ON THE INTERNET?

 

Well, on April 27, 1998, Koko the gorilla did engage in what her mentor, Francine Patterson, called the first interspecies chat, on America Online.
⁸
But Koko’s critics intimate that Patterson is the brains behind Koko.

 

BUT PEOPLE WERE ABLE TO CHAT WITH KOKO ONLINE.

Yes. However, Koko is rusty on her typing skills, so questions were interpreted by Patterson into American Sign Language, which Koko observed, and then Koko’s signed responses were interpreted by Patterson back into typed responses. I guess the suspicion is that Patterson is like those language interpreters from the diplomatic corps—one wonders if you’re communicating with the dignitary, in this case Koko, or the interpreter.

 

ISN’T IT CLEAR IN GENERAL THAT THE APES ARE COMMUNICATING? THEY’RE NOT THAT DIFFERENT FROM US GENETICALLY, AS YOU SAID.

 

There’s clearly some form of communication going on. The question being addressed by the linguistics community is whether the apes can really deal with the levels of symbolism embodied in human language. I think that Dr. Emily Savage-Rumbaugh of Georgia State University, who runs a fifty-five-acre ape-communication laboratory, made a fair statement recently when she said, “They [her critics] are asking Kanzi [one of her ape subjects] to do everything that humans do, which is specious. He’ll never do that. It still doesn’t negate what he can do.”

 

WELL, I’M ROOTING FOR THE APES.

 

Yes, it would be nice to have someone to talk to when we get tired of other humans.

 

SO WHY DON’T YOU JUST HAVE A LITTLE TALK WITH YOUR COMPUTER?

 

I do talk to my computer, and it dutifully takes down what I say to it. And I can give commands by speaking in natural language to Microsoft Word,
⁹
but it’s still not a very engaging conversationalist. Remember, computers are still a million times simpler than the human brain, so it’s going to be a couple of decades yet before they become comforting companions.

 

BACK ON THIS INDIVIDUAL-VERSUS-GROUP-INTELLIGENCE ISSUE, AREN’T MOST ACHIEVEMENTS IN ART AND SCIENCE ACCOMPLISHED BY INDIVIDUALS? YOU KNOW, YOU CAN’T WRITE A SONG OR PAINT A PICTURE BY COMMITTEE.

 

Actually, a lot of important science and technology is done in large groups.

 

BUT AREN’T THE REAL BREAKTHROUGHS DONE BY INDIVIDUALS?

 

In many cases, that’s true. Even then, the critics and the technology conservatives, even the intolerant ones, do play an important screening role. Not every new and different idea is worth pursuing. It’s worthwhile having some barriers to break through.

Overall, the human enterprise is clearly capable of achievements that go far beyond what we can do as individuals.

HOW ABOUT THE INTELLIGENCE OF A LYNCH MOB?

 

I suppose a group is not always more intelligent than its members.

 

WELL, I HOPE THOSE TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY MACHINES DON’T EXHIBIT OUR MOB PSYCHOLOGY.

 

Good point.

 

I MEAN, I WOULDN’T WANT TO END UP IN A DARK ALLEY WITH A BAND OF UNRULY MACHINES.

 

We should keep that in mind as we design our future machines. I’ll make a little note....

 

YES, PARTICULARLY BEFORE THE MACHINES START, AS YOU SAID, DESIGNING THEMSELVES.