The Philosophers' Cocoon

Quantum chemistry paper & the P2P Hypothesis

Magnus Hanson-Heine, research fellow in quantum chemistry at the University of Nottingham, writes in:

I came across your work on the peer-to-peer simulation hypothesis having recently published an article in the journal Chemical Science detailing the first instance of a computational physics simulation being performed using a blockchain virtual computer.

I thought you might find this work interesting given that the simulations were performed on the Ethereum blockchain and therefore (to my knowledge) represent the first example showing that, depending on your definitions, the physical world can be simulated within a computational environment that operates using a decentralized peer-to-peer proof-of-work consensus protocol in order to determine the agreed history of that simulation between the peers that make up the computational network.

Article: Computational chemistry experiments performed directly on a blockchain virtual computer. Chemical Science, 2020 (co-authored with Alexander P. Ashmore, School of Computing and Communications, The Open University).

Very cool! Readers interested in the P2P Hypothesis may also be interested in this post, Mesh World P2P Simulation Hypothesis, by computer programmer Eric Grange, Development Lead and Chief Architect at Creative IT.

P2P Hypothesis interview at Borealism

The other week, the blog Borealism published a brief interview with David Kyle Johnson (Kings College) on how our lives would change if we discovered we are living in a computer simulation. Dr. Johnson kindly mentioned some of my work on The Peer-to-Peer (P2P) Simulation Hypothesis (see here, here, and here), which led in turn to the blog owner to send me a few follow-up questions. Borealism published my answers in part here, but here they are in full (I hope some of you find them interesting!):

1. Your theory maintains anchored in the idea that time flows subjectively and that the physical universe is a timelessly existing array of information which our consciousness is able to perceive as it chooses to perceive. In other words, that each person’s consciousness can read the physical information, akin to the laser of a CD player reading the information on the compact disc and playing it back to the observer. In your observations and experiences, how does the quantum world of collapsing wave functions and the observer effect work to support this hypothesis? 

Great question, and many thanks for taking an interest in my work and sharing it with your readers!

Let me begin by suggesting this video to any of your viewers who may be (understandably) unfamiliar with quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is an incredibly well-confirmed theory of fundamental physics. Indeed, every bizarre prediction it makes has so far been observed to be correct. Yet quantum mechanics paints a very strange picture of reality. Among other things, it entails that every particle in the universe is simultaneously in many places at once (quantum superposition), but that whenever we observe a particle, we will always find it in some particular place in space-time (wave-function collapse). As I note in my 2013 article, ‘A New Theory of Free Will’, Einstein thought this to be so absurd that he once scoffed, “Do you really think the moon isn’t there if you aren’t looking at it?” Perhaps the weirdest thing here is that according to the dominant interpretation of the equations of quantum mechanics—the Copenhagen interpretation—the superposition every particle is in never actually goes away or ‘collapses’. Rather, every particle is always in a superposition (many places at once), but observation makes the particle appear to ‘collapse’ to a single particular state.

My theory provides an elegant explanation of these phenomena. In a peer-to-peer networked computer simulation, each computer on the network is running its own unique simulation. So, for example, if we are playing a peer-to-peer networked internet game on 2,000 game consoles, there are in a sense ‘2,000 simulations’ running, each with its own ‘reality’. But at the same time, insofar as all of the computers on the network are interacting with each other—updating what they are simulating based on the data the other computers on the network give them—there is also in a sense just one simulation: the entire network.

This is how the Peer-to-Peer (P2P) Hypothesis explains quantum superposition and wave-function collapse. Insofar as each simulation on the network has its own unique representation of where objects in the simulated environment are, unless there is absolutely perfect error-correction in real time (a computational impossibility), different computers on the network will have slightly different representations of where things in the environment are. Thus, at the level of the network as a whole, it is right to say that everything in the environment is always in a superposition: each particle in a 2,000-computer network will be represented in the network as being at something like 2,000 different places simultaneously. Yet, whenever any particular individual playing their game looks at the simulated world (on their computer), they will always observe things in one particular place or another: since their computer is one of the 2,000 computers running the simulation. So, in a P2P network, objects really are in a sense always in multiple places at once, but will always be observed by any observer to be at one particular place or other—exactly as the equations of quantum mechanics entail.