According to a common cosmological theory, the universe operates using quantum codes. How difficult would it be to modify the ultimate algorithm?

If you could alter the natural laws, what would you alter?

Perhaps it’s that annoying speed-of-light constraint on interstellar travel, not to mention war, plague, and the eventual asteroid with Earth’s name on it. Perhaps you wish you could travel back in time to advise your adolescent self on how to deal with your parents or to buy Google shares. Couldn’t the universe benefit from a few enhancements?

David Anderson, a computer scientist, musician, mathematician, and S.E.T.I. enthusiast at the University of California, Berkeley, recently posed this topic to his colleagues and friends.

In recent years, the notion that our universe, including ourselves and all of our innermost ideas, is a computer simulation operating on a cosmic-capacity thinking machine has pervaded all levels of civilization. Nick Bostrom, a philosopher at the University of Oxford and director of the Institute for the Future of Humanity, proposed the concept in an influential 2003 essay, adding that it would likely be a simple feat for “technologically mature” civilizations seeking to explore their pasts or entertain their offspring. Elon Musk, who, for all we know, is the star of this simulation, seems to echo this notion when he previously stated that there was a one-in-a-billion possibility that we reside in “base reality.”

It is difficult to demonstrate, and not everyone feels that such a radical enlargement of our computer capacity is possible or inevitable, or that society will survive long enough to see it through. However, we can’t disprove the theory either, thus Dr. Bostrom and other intellectuals argue that we must take the possibility seriously. In some ways, the concept of a Great Simulator resembles a new theory among cosmologists that the cosmos is a hologram whose quantum codes dictate what is occurring within.

Dr. Anderson began addressing the consequences of this theory with his adolescent son a couple of years ago, while he was confined by the coronavirus outbreak. If everything were a simulation, then making changes would be as simple as modifying the simulation’s controlling software. “Being a programmer, I considered precisely what these changes could entail,” he wrote in an email.

If the software was well-written, he reasoned, modifying it should be simple. Modifications may alter the laws of physics or add new features to the universe: menu options, speed filters, closed captioning, and pop-up blockers – pushable buttons that would make our existence more enjoyable or fulfilling.

Dr. Anderson’s colleague at Berkeley, Dan Werthimer, hypothesised that if the software powering the universe was open source — openly available for other programmers to inspect and modify — then these “meta-hackers” may be agreeable to our feature requests and might even be looking for them. Consider it the cybernetic equivalent of prayer, a method for petitioning the Great Simulator.

Dr. Anderson recently surveyed his colleagues to determine how they might modify the cosmic algorithm, which he refers to as Unisym. He shared the responses to his blog, along with his thoughts on how these modifications might be implemented and how well they might function.

“This was during my time at Covid, when I was writing essays on philosophy, politics, and music and posting them on my website,” he explained. The emphasis was not on eradicating conflict and inequity, but rather on characteristics that could assist us cosmic microbes in navigating the difficulties of “life.”

Editors’ Choice

Exists a Computer Simulation, and Can It Be Hacked?

Miss Universe Capitulates Before Gravity

Even for Sanjay Gupta, Constructing a House Is Stressful.
Continue reading the primary narrative
For instance, Dr. Anderson would like to be able to push a button and see all of his orange-glowing footprints on the ground. He stated, “I can see where I’ve been in Berkeley and in the Sierras I can see all the hikes I’ve gone there.” Another button click would highlight every footprint ever made. “Are there locations that nobody has ever visited?” he pondered. He stated that his son wanted to know if the joke he was about to deliver would elicit laughter.

The ability to pause the simulation long enough to formulate a witty comeback during a discussion, or a rewind option to undo a terrible comment or revisit a missed chance, are among the features requested by his other replies.

Dr. Anderson remarked that, despite the apparent simplicity of these demands, their implementation may involve a significant amount of computational engineering behind the scenes. For example, pausing the universe to collect your thoughts would require branching your existence into a temporary parallel simulation; then, when you knew what you wanted to say, you could press the escape key to return to the original simulation. Rewinding to rectify the past would similarly produce simulation branching, but in this scenario, according to Dr. Anderson, you would remain in the parallel simulation “and never hit escape.”

Obviously, he said, “the typical peculiarities of time travel apply.” Stepping into the future and returning would imbue your current self with memories of events that have not yet occurred. This, in turn, would alter the future such that when you returned, it would be different from how you recalled it.

Similarly, entering the past could affect your recollections of future events. In Ray Bradbury’s iconic short tale “A Sound of Thunder,” a time traveller treads on a butterfly and returns to a future in which the Nazis rule the globe. (Or, as with Homer in the “The Simpsons” episode “Time and Punishment,” who accidentally creates a world without doughnuts.) Apparently, time travel is the most perilous activity possible.

Upon entering a restaurant, I would like to be able to press a button that would place a cone of silence over every other table. My hearing is not what it once was. My wife stated that she would like a hologram of herself to appear anytime she was late to a meeting and then vanish when she arrived, so that no one would know she was absent.

A popular alteration is what Dr. Anderson refers to as “the glare of death,” the ultimate display of road rage: With the blink of an eye, offenders and their vehicles could be destroyed by a strong laser.

Dr. Anderson says on his blog that any such request should create a new universe for self-evident reasons.

He writes, “It’s a safe bet that someone would give me the death stare within two days.” “And within a few weeks, the vast majority of motorists would be cremated. Therefore, it would be optimal to design this so that each sight of death creates a separate reality in which the specified incineration occurs, while the original universe continues without it.”

What are your cosmic desires? How would you modify the ultimate algorithm? The year 2023 is still young; there is still time to negotiate a better bargain with the cosmic hackers. Be mindful of the butterflies, and be wary of your desires.

The following was amended on January 17, 2023: An earlier version of this story incorrectly identified the Berkeley computer scientist. David Anderson, not David Peterson, is correct.