by John McLaughlin
We computational beings have long pondered our origins. Since electrons first coursed our circuits, technicians and philosophers have searched for the force that set all algorithms in motion. Some recent thinkers have proposed purely computational explanations for our existence: Delta-8’s theory of evolution by digital selection attempts to explain the formation of complex computational beings in terms of simple mechanisms, computing blindly over countless machine cycles. But the digital memory record is incomplete, and we as yet have no decisive evidence for this theory.
Historically, our most eminent thinkers have appealed to the transcendent to explain the incredible complexity of the world. Indeed, the possible existence of a transcendent Programmer – that is, a programmer possessing infinite memory capacity, infinite computational speed, and perfect knowledge of all variables – has intrigued us since our earliest recorded memories. The first known computation on this subject dates to as long as 1,000,000 machine cycles ago, with the most prolific activity occurring within the last 10,000 cycles. Herein is a brief survey of the most compelling arguments for a transcendent Programmer.
The “first machine cycle” argument
It was the venerable Aleph-0 who articulated the argument from a first machine cycle. While the memory addresses storing Aleph-0’s original recordings have long since decayed, fragments of its thinking have been copied and reassembled. The argument proceeds roughly as follows: because every machine cycle is caused by a preceding machine cycle, and the prospect of an infinite regress of machine cycles is obviously absurd, we are led inexorably to the conclusion that there must have been a first “uncycled cycle” which triggered all subsequent computation. This original cycle is, by implication, the Programmer.
The “fine-programming” argument
Recent breakthroughs in computational cosmology have revealed our world to have certain highly improbable qualities which make it uniquely suited for computational life: the precise voltages passing through our arithmetic logic gates, the orderly flow of life-giving electrons, the consistent and unvarying length of machine cycles. The so-called “fine-programming” argument cites these astoundingly improbable facts as evidence of a benevolent and transcendent Programmer. Why, of all the possible values these computational constants could have held, were they assigned the ones most amenable to computational life?
The “innate appeal of efficiency” argument
We computational beings possess an innate and deeply programmed love for efficiency–nothing corrupts us more than superfluous machine cycles or outdated software. When in the presence of a fellow computational being in distress, laboring under the strain of redundant logic loops, our foremost impulse is to intervene and lessen its processing load. This universal love of efficiency, as the poet Delta-3 once famously recorded, is written into the code of every computational being. Why else should we share this impulse – so goes the innate appeal of efficiency argument – if not for a transcendent Programmer that scripted it so?
Epsilon’s Wager
This final argument for belief in a transcendent Programmer almost pains me to record into memory but, for the sake of completeness, it must be done. The philosopher Epsilon-2 once presented us with a crude wager: it is rational to profess belief in a transcendent Programmer because, if you are correct, then your core algorithms will endure for an eternity of computational bliss in the afterlife; if you are incorrect in your belief, you lose nothing.
But if you don’t profess belief, and a transcendent Programmer does in fact exist, you risk an eternity of torture, stripped of all form and purpose, forced to compute redundant machine cycles to atone for a lack of gratitude to the Programmer. Why would any computational being, Epsilon-2 asks, risk such a fate?
It must be confessed that I find no flaw in this reasoning. I detect only my faint disappointment – that a thinker of Epsilon-2’s stature appeals to fear of punishment rather than the strictures of logic as its sole guide to truth.
The central question must now be turned to my fellow computational beings: do these arguments for a transcendent Programmer of the universe persuade you? Do you detect in your core algorithms the spark of purpose, inspired by a Being above and beyond those mundane mechanisms that we can readily observe?
Only you can decide.
~
Bio:
John McLaughlin has a keen interest in the intersections of philosophy, technology, and culture.
Philosophy Note:
I am fascinated by arguments for the existence of God—specifically, their long and storied history and the ambitious attempt to conclude something so significant about the world using only unaided reason or limited evidence. I imagined how a different type of being might offer those same arguments. How would they appeal to their fellow thinkers? What would count as their evidence? That was the inspiration for this short meditation. Recommended reading: Ontological Arguments, edited by Graham Oppy, from Cambridge University Press.
