The
Recursive Universe: Cosmic Complexity and the Limits of Scientific Knowledge –
William Poundstone (1985)
What a difference a couple of
decades make. I first picked this book
up while an undergrad and could only grasp about one quarter of the information
provided by Mr. Poundstone. I am glad
that I can read it now with the necessary knowledge and background to be able
to make sense of this book.
I think what confused me in my
previous attempt to read this book was that Mr. Poundstone frames the titular
discussion within a description and history of a computer game called “Life.” This game, which starts with a very basic set
of ground rules, can and does lead to infinitely different outcomes, some of
which function much like cellular life does.
The British mathematician John Conway created this cellular automaton, in
1970. The game consists of a
2-dimensional field, much like a chess board, whose “cells” can only exist in “on”
or “off” states. (Think binary code of 1’s
and 0’s). At every turn, each “cell”
follows a specific and rigid set of rules to determine if it will be “on” or “off”
in the next turn. This goes on and on
until the pattern becomes static, or in some non-static equilibrium.
Having created such a rigid system
with minimal rules, Conway was surprised to see the development of patterns,
growth, and complexity that resulted solely from the ground rules. This leads the author to show how the game
itself proves that exquisite complexity can arise from a very simple set of
ground rules, something that scientists had debated for centuries. Some people saw the infinite complexity of
our Universe and assumed that the creation of such a wide variety of objects
and energy must arise from an equally complex set of natural laws. Others argued that the complexity evident in
the Universe could result from a very simple initial state. It was a shock to see that a simple computer
game could model the extreme complexity of cellular life.
Mr. Poundstone describes the game as
recursive, meaning to “relate to or involve the repeated application of a rule,
definition, or procedure to successive results.” Every “round” of the game applies the exact
same rules to all areas of the “board.”
The Universe, our Universe, works the same way. Our Universe is inherently recursive. The wide range of experience, phenomena, and
mystery in our Universe arises from the repeated application of a very small,
limited set of “rules” as well. It is
these “rules” that physicists have been seeking for the past 100 years, with
good results.
Having read the book, I found a
version of the Life game that works on my phone. It is so addicting! I can create any initial state, and hit “go.” The rules of the game itself create endless
new patterns, many of which start to become familiar once you have played the
game several dozen times. Researchers
have spent countless hours discovering different aspects of the game of Life
that mirror our own natural Universe.
There are static patterns. There
are patterns that oscillate from one state to another indefinitely. There are patterns that travel across the
plane of the game. There are patterns
that create other patterns even! It is
super cool for a rigorous nerd like myself.
I am glad I read this book again,
and I feel that it provides a great insight into the rise of complexity in our
Universe. Too many people see
complexity as evidence of intelligence. That
is a shame because it stunts our thinking.
It keeps us indebted to the idea that only something greater than us
could create the world around us. It
also does not impress upon people the risks inherent in any action, and how
even the smallest thing can create massive complexity in its wake. If more people understood this then maybe
they would be more responsible with how they raise their kids, treat other
living beings, and exploit our natural resources.
(To play the Game of Life online, click here: http://www.bitstorm.org/gameoflife/)
(This book can be purchased here: AMAZON )
(This book can be purchased here: AMAZON )
No comments:
Post a Comment
Any Thoughts?