Written in 1994 by Greg Egan, a sci-fi writer and a mathematician. In 1994 the theory of computation was hardly obscured by the computation itself, which was relatively simple and relatively slow, compared to today's standards, 30 years afterwards. Turing, Gödel, Von Neumann had already lived, died and created the foundation of what will explode into the field of computation. Greg refers to these giants in his theoretical constructs which form the foundation of the book.
Exploration of the relation simulation-reality
I will explain the proposed theory behind the story in the book as I've understood it. The main researcher and one of the main characters in the book creates a Copy of himself which lives in a simulated reality universe. One of the first tests he performs on his simulated self is to introduce a permutation in the order of computation while the Copy is counting to 10. The result of the experiment is the foundation for all the future theory-work in the book as the Copy doesn't notice any discrepancy in his perceived order of events. Even though the computation doesn't happen in the order of the causal chain, the causal chain remains intact, and he remembers himself counting the numbers to 10 in the right order.
This introduces a greater freedom in the type of systems on which consciousness can be booted. As the consciousness is presumably built upon simple rules of operation which constrain the perception of the structure of the universe, but the hardware itself is not constrained by those rules, it merely is able to execute those rules in any order.
The premise problem
From the beginning I felt as if I hadn't really understood the leap, probably due to my lack of knowledge about said systems. My puzzles were:
how do you execute a simulation of consciousness in a random order? Wouldn't a consciousness simulation as described in the book be an initial conditions type of problem, similar to numerical integration? You cannot begin integrating from the middle (unless the problem has an analytical solution, which beats the purpose of numerical integration) because you don't know what the solution is in the middle. The whole point is that there is no analytical solution of consciousness (as far as we know), which means that we have to simulate it step by step.
If the simulation itself can be separated in individually-simulatable time slots, wouldn't this already be an indicator that time continuity is not a pre-requisite, and the whole experiment of actually simulating in a permutated order would be almost unnecessary? The main character does suggest that they already knew what the result would be, but they needed to do the experiment anyways, so I guess that the answer to that is yes.
If I accept this thesis, then all the results follow, but this is where I'm having trouble.
Exploration of the human reaction to the simulation-reality relation
I find that the human reaction to this situation is under-explored. The two main characters are Paul Durham and Maria (?) are the ones who undergo the realisation of this possibility. The response of Durham is a suicide in the “real” life and a continued existence as a simulation. Maria's response is scepticism with a slight hope that the theory would not hold. Somehow, both are quite uninspired. Maria's scepticism and lack of thirst for life, as well as Durham's dry and terse way with his own life might be quite realistic, but for me are just depressing.
Later, in the Permutation City, many people are living as Copies, and I find that what they have explored is quite little and primitive because they all cling so strongly to this notion of humanity.
As a human, it is very hard to rewrite your original software. It takes time, profound experiences, genuine wish, lots of luck, the right people, etc. This seems to be the notion all of the simulated humans cling to in varying degrees. One of the characters programs himself to be greatly amused by different and randomly selected activities. Not many are interested in the act of creating. There is an unspoken assumption that problem solving is the only true motivator for humans and that the existence without the survival problem is therefore a constant torture, one which you can only push through by finding sufficiently clever ways of distracting yourself from this fact..
Character development
The characters seem very flat. They are there for the author to expound upon an idea, but they are themselves not alive. Greg attempts to rectify this in a few instances, in which I almost wish he wouldn’t. The accounts of Maria and Paul having sex is such a bleak and depressing moment, that it would have to have consequences in their characters. Paul should not be striving for infinite existence, and Maria should realise that she likes twiddling around in a reality simulation software, but that she is unable to share in large ideas. The mentions of how the Copies enjoy their eternal life is also strangely uninspired. They take on different physical appearances, they amuse themselves in a series of random hobbies for the enjoyment of which they alter their software, they dispassionately argue some political points… Even though I am very much interested in infinite life, I would rather die than live surrounded by such dread, for which there is no excuse, as the case might be in this life.
Conclusion
What is it that makes a good book? That questions does not lend itself to an easy answer. A great book can be uplifting, depressing, funny, erotic, and many other things, but I think that it needs to be either of those in a relatable way. There needs to be something relatable and interesting in either the setup of the world (such as is in Neuromancer, Blade Runner, Matrix), in the well developed characters with their consistent world-perceptions and emotional / spiritual setup (the latest Joker), or in the intensity of a particular situation (one example for me is Festen). I feel that this book falls into a different category, which is not so atypical for the Sci-Fi genre. It is a novel built out of an intellectual-rational-level idea.
Working in science, I have learnt that, in order to make others enthusiastic about your idea, you have to show your enthusiasm for it, your reasons behind finding this idea worthy of passion. Otherwise, ideas of the intellectual-rational level don’t resonate very much with humans. In this book, the author doesn’t really make me see why this idea is so worth considering. The explanation of an idea is too vague and hard to fall into the real of popular fiction, which makes it seem like he is attempting to explain actual science. The punchline never arrives. There is no “Oh!” moment in which I become invested.
This, combined with the very bleak portrayal of the world makes the book always seem to miss some essential point - be it in a characters reaction, juiciness of a concept, or intensity of a situation.
Comments