Before we try on the Universe-as-a-computation notion for size, lets briefly acquaint ourselves with the number crunching background that provided us with computer systems in the first place. We are not so much interested in the complicated electronic details of computer hardware and the like, as we are in the essential informational principles governing the operation of computers. This will reveal more about information and the way in which different forms of information can be processed. We will then be able to see if Nature really is amenable to a computational description (this is not as offensive as it might at first seem to some). If it is - and I hasten to add that I am not the first to put forward this idea - then we would have to view ourselves as living programs written in an organic biochemical language. More to the point, we would represent programs who whose destiny is to be twice executed - firstly by way of genetically determined growth and secondly by inexorable death.
In the meantime of course, before the latter eventuality, we can, through the consumption of certain 'access codes', come to experience information pertaining to the point or purpose of the overall master plan governing the reality process. Once more, it sounds assuredly fantastic and assuredly millennial, yet if the computational paradigm is in any way accurate in describing and understanding what Nature is about then such radical ideas as these will have to be accepted or at least be debated. Anyhow, to get you in the mood to swallow the idea of an information processing Universe, lets briefly look at the rise of computer culture for, whatever your opinion of computers, these 'infomous' machines are guaranteed to run and run....
It was the emergence of information processing computers in the 1940's which heralded the arrival of the Information Age. Before 1950 there were just 15 digital computers in the world, probably because there was no room for more given their huge bulk in those days. Now of course, computers have shrunk in size and are almost a compulsory possession. Indeed, our culture thrives on computers, which explains the exponential growth in computer technology, that is, that computer science is evolving ever more rapidly. Trade and industry, the military, the educational system, financial institutions; all now depend upon the constant processing and manipulation of information carried out by these ubiquitous and versatile machines. Information is the supreme currency of modern culture; it is everywhere being fed in and out of computer systems.
As with information and information-integration in general, the emergence of computer systems and the proliferation of global computerised telecommunication systems like the Internet seems unstoppable. It is difficult to discern whether anyone has any real control over this development. So fast is computer technology racing, that before we can assess the implications of one aspect of it, another dramatic breakthrough is made. Nostalgically recall the chunky portable digital calculators which suddenly appeared in the mid-70's. At the time did they not seem excitingly futuristic? Whether or not they were understood, their various buttons and computational functions seemed to provide an instant gateway to esoteric mathematical knowledge. Input a few numbers and commands, and the little machine instantly responded as if by magic. Log books and slide rules could at last be ceremoniously trashed. And yet digital calculators are now given away as tacky promotional gifts. Similarly, those original home computers of the early 80's, like the cute rubber-key Sinclair Spectrum ZX81, are now all but worthless and even primitive (in terms of capacity) in comparison to today's lightweight, high resolution, multi-media compatible, memory-expandable and portable variety. And by tomorrow even these will have become passé. The digital computer revolution is happening so fast as to make it a blur.
Computers are popular because they are able to process information so quickly and in so many different ways. Processing information, information in process, its the same thing. At heart, information processing is all that computers do, whether the computer system in question is that used by the Pentagon, the Inland Revenue, or myself to write this book (which, I might add, is a Pentium 133MHz model, out of date it seems before I had hardly left the shop). Computers might process musical forms of information, financial forms, meteorological forms, or even visual pornographic forms. Either way, computers can only be fed with information, which they promptly process and return to the user.
Since it is the form or 'shape' of the information which is processed by computers, a computer is an example of a formal system. (aha! That sounds familiar....) When it comes down to the nitty-gritty, all a computer does is take one formal set of symbols (an informational pattern) which mean nothing to it and then translate that set of symbols into another form according to specific rules. Likewise, the output of symbols (an informational pattern) will mean nothing to the computer either. The computers we employ only slavishly manipulate symbols; they do not think, they know not what they do.
In general, formal systems like the computer consist of a set of processable formulae such as strings of elements/symbols taken from some well defined alphabet. In a computer the strings involved are sequences of binary numbers - ones and zeros - which are known as machine language. Any information can in principle be coded into binary strings. Think about it. Recall in the last chapter my contention that matter was informational. As we shall see, it is precisely because physical systems can be transcribed into digital bit strings (i.e. they are informational) that has allowed computers to model aspects of the world. Add to these bit strings (whatever they might represent) a set of transformation rules which govern the ways in which the binary strings can be transformed, and you end up with a formal system able to process information. The more powerful the computer the more rapidly can it deal with its binary manipulations.
The transformation rules operating in a computer system are embodied in the computer's software which is run by the computer's central processing unit (the CPU). The software instructs the CPU how to operate upon its input information in a specified way. Built into the CPU are numerous logic gates (like AND, OR and NOT gates) which transform sequential inputs of 1's and 0's into further sequences of 1's and 0's, according to how input is fed into the CPU. Millions of such transformations can occur each second and the resulting output states (further strings of 1's and 0's) can then be interpreted from outside of the system. In other words, the context of human perception is needed in order to inject some meaning into the computer's output. For example, a computer system might take some input from a keyboard, process it according to its program, and then come to display the words "It is now safe for you to turn off your computer" on the computer's monitor. Although the pixel array might well say this, for the computer it is merely a particular pattern of binary output absolutely determined by the logical processing of the input.
Other formal systems are things like dreaded algebra, and heavy propositional logic (input: "All sensible men hate propositional logic" and "Aristotle was a sensible man", and hence according to the transformation rules of propositional logic, an output which must read: "Aristotle hated propositional logic").
Chess is another more common kind of formal system. In chess, the pieces are the individual symbols and the strings are the possible positions of those pieces. The game proceeds according to state transitions of the initial state, just as a computer processes information via state transitions of its initial input state. The rules of chess are the 'software' which dictates how state transitions are to proceed.
The transition from one state of a chess game to another is discrete, as with the operation of any formal system. A bishop does not half move; instead it discreetly 'jumps' from one position to another. Also, since a formal system like chess depends solely upon the form of the symbols and strings relative to one another, it is irrelevant what the pieces are made of. Indeed, they need not even be 'physical' at all, for most professional chess players are able to play the game in their heads alone. Though that will not do much for avid spectators of chess, it does highlight the fact that a formal system can be realised in many different types of medium. Indeed, a computer system can be made of tin cans and bits of string. What is crucial are the formal relations, or patterns, of the system's symbols to one another no matter how they may be embodied.
You could even take some people and use them to code in some input numbers which you would like to multiply. Roughly symbolising genital structure, the women could represent the binary number 0, and the men the binary number 1. After the two input numbers have been transformed into a specific binary queue of men and women, one could multiply the two input numbers by channelling the queue through a few logic gates operated by a couple of friends (instead of telling the binary people queue to go forth and multiply...). You could then take the output queue (the new pattern) and interpret the resulting encoded number which, if you set up the system correctly, would correspond to the multiplication of the two original numbers. Agreed, a simple calculator could have done the job more efficiently and with much less hassle, yet the point is that the calculator itself works on the same principle, only this time it uses silicon on/off switches to embody the binary information. Formal systems like computers are therefore not tied to any particular substantiation.
Before we alighted on the notion of formal systems, I argued that not only was the Universe made of information, but that this information moved or flowed in a language-like way. I claimed that the elements in informational systems like that of DNA uttered their informative content in response to specific contexts, as if natural dialogues were unfolding. We have now reached the point where we can define language, in whatever mode, as a formal, and hence informational, system. Let me quote writer Paul Young, author of The Nature of Information who has written thusly:
"All languages are form dependent. In spoken language, arbitrarily selected symbols are manipulated as units that can be interconnected or arranged only in specific relationships according to specific rules. It is the form (relations), whether semantic, syntactic, experiential, or contextual, of the elements of language, and not the matter of which they are constructed, from which the mind generates meaning; the physical symbols themselves embody no linguistic meaning.....It is neither the mass nor the energy content of the letters, words, sentences, and so on, whether expressed via mouth, pen and ink, stylus and wax, or computer printout, that contains the information in language, but their specific form or arrangement."
I have gone one theoretical leap further however. Young refers to the so-called "matter of which they are constructed" with regard to the symbols of language. This 'matter', in my view, is itself composed of language-like elements within some formal system or another. Which implies that there is only information; the Universe is built upon formal informational systems like those of physics, chemistry, and biology, and all are embedded within one another to form an integrated informational continuum. They are formal systems because it is the form (i.e. pattern or architecture) of the elements whether they be particles, atoms, molecules, or words, and their formal relations to one another, which determine the role, meaning and subsequent action of those elements.
The language-like system of particles represents one of the Universe's most basic informational substrates. This system begets the language-like system of atomic elements. In turn this system gives rise to the language-like system of chemistry, which itself leads to the language-like system of DNA. And so on right up to the substantiation of the language system of consciousness within our biological brains. Each of these language-like systems of information utilises its own kind of logic to express itself, namely the logic of physics, chemical logic, molecular and genetic logic and finally the logic of mind or psycho-logic. Each form of logic gives rise to patterns and architectural structures which influence one another and lead to more patterns, some of which produce, or come to embody, new systems of logic. Descartes was wrong; the dualistic mind/body problem is an illusion. Formal systems consisting of language-like information in process constitute reality. Information in process is everywhere and everything.
If the above reasoning is correct, then the Universe must in a real sense be an on-going computation in which its informational content is being continually churned and processed so as to yield new forms/patterns of information. At any one moment the Universe is in a specific state or form. This state is processed according to the 'rules of the Universe', and another universal state is formed. And so on, from the moment of the alleged big bang to right now. The entire Universe can thus be considered a progressive state transitional computation, a kind of meta-formal system continually expressing its potential nature. And, more profoundly, we are inside the computation. Or so it seems.
Is such a speculation tenable? Could we really be locked inside a vast computation as though we were all but hapless sub-routine prisoners, moving in time to some grand algorithmic dance? According to our foray into the nature of information and computations, such a suggestion would appear to be a spectacular probability, albeit a trifle claustrophobic, and an outrageous absurdity at the same time. We are so used to thinking of computers as neat white boxes atop desks that we forget that they are formal systems which can, in principle, be embodied in anything. But, if we do take this fact into account, and if we also bear in mind that computers can manipulate all sorts of information even going as far as simulating things like the weather, then we might well be attracted to the idea of a computational Universe. Or, am I merely resorting to the use of a convenient metaphor borrowed from our technological culture? If so, then the metaphor might be useful but, ultimately, since it is temporal, its use will be limited until another more useful metaphor becomes available.
Whereas it is true to say that metaphors have often be taken from the latest technological devices in order to support some novel theoretical conjecture, I would reverse the argument. I hold that the principle of informational computation reflects the actual way (or at least one way) in which Nature itself operates. What we have achieved in the digital computer revolution is a mimicking of Nature. We have come to realise that the name of the Universe game is information (everything is information) and its processing according to predetermined rules.
Indeed, one only has to consider the fact that DNA, the very mainstay of life, is itself a form of digital information to begin suspecting that Nature be computational in some fundamental way. There are four nucleotides which make up all and any DNA - guanine, cytosine, adenine or thymine - and since any given element of DNA must be one of these four possibilities then this system is clearly digital.
As if this digital quality of DNA was not striking enough, it is also the case that neuronal firing activity must be based upon similar digital principles since neurons do, or do not, fire. Patterns of neuronal firing differ according to which neurons are firing and which are not firing (as well as the rate of firing). Thus nervous systems (which includes the brain) likewise employ an essentially digital form of information processing. As much as we like to think ourselves as pioneering inventors and technological geniuses, Nature verily beat us to it in terms of digital technology and digital computation. The Information Age is clearly far older than we imagine.
If you are still not convinced that the essential fabric of the Universe is informational or if you still much prefer the safe and reassuring feel of 'hard tangible matter', let me introduce some more support for the Universe-as-a-computation scenario. This comes from the brilliant (and wealthy since he has been awarded large sums of money by certain theological organisations) science philosopher Paul Davies. Davies is foremost a professor of theoretical physics, yet he is one of those rare breed of scientists who dares to ask the really intimidating questions about the fundamental nature of reality. He also attempts to answer such questions.
In his book The Mind of God (a term borrowed from the end of physicist Stephen Hawkings' book A Brief History of Time), Davies labours hard to get to the heart of reality. Whilst discussing the ability of computer simulations to mimic aspects of the real world, Davies inevitably asks us if the Universe is itself computational:
"Compare the activity of the computer with a natural physical system - for example, a planet going around the sun. The state of the system at any instant can be specified by giving the position and velocity of the planet. These are the input data. The relevant numbers can be given in binary arithmetic, as a bit string of ones and zeros. At some later time the planet will have a new position and velocity, which can be described by another bit string: these are the output data. The planet has succeeded in converting one bit string into another, and is therefore in a sense a computer."
In the same vein, Davies goes on to discuss the various states within a system of gas molecules. An incredibly long binary sequence could be used to specify the velocity and position of all the gas molecules at one instant. After a set amount of time has passed, a new state will have been reached which can likewise be specified in terms of a bit string. Input information has thus been converted by Nature into output information, and this is clearly a computational process.
It is precisely because different aspects of the world can be coded into a binary form that computers are able to model different facets of reality. Of course, computers are not able to simulate the real world exactly since that would require a calculation involving all the relevant information in the system to be modelled. Any inaccuracy in the initial configuration of input data will tend to increase exponentially as the simulation progresses (if the simulated system is non-linear). This is the so-called butterfly effect in which the state transition of the system is highly sensitive to initial conditions (perhaps the beating wings of some anarchic butterfly led to the unforeseen hurricane that swept through the U.K. in 1987 - if so, the days of this dastardly butterfly are surely numbered!).
Alter the initial state of a computation in some minuscule way, and the alteration will inevitably develop an increasing influence upon the development of the computation, so much so that the end state might be radically different. This is the reason why computer simulations of the weather will not be accurate beyond a few days, and why we should be merciful in our judgement of erroneous weathermen. It is simply impossible to input all the information about the current state of the weather. Only the real weather system itself contains all the relevant information. In this sense, the Universe is its own best computation. All that weather scientists do is simulate the weather as accurately as they can using as much input information as they can obtain. Computers merely model different aspects of the world, they cannot recreate them 100% for that would necessitate inputting all the relevant information. For sure, man-made computers and computations are smart, only the real world is far smarter and far more rich in information. And part of its output is we conscious humans.
If we go along with the notion of the Universe at large as being an on-going computation, at least of sorts, we are unavoidably led to ask ourselves what precisely governs the state transition of the Universe from one moment to the next? In other words, what are the rules which control this vast information processing system? After all, there must be some lawful control over the progress of the Universal Computation for we witness order and cohesive patterns on all scales of reality, from simple cells to spiral galaxies. What then is the basis of the meta-grammar or meta-software which runs the reality process?
It would appear that the fundamental laws of physics represent the Universal program. These constitute the essential software governing the on-going computation of the Universe. There can be no denial of this, for the four fundamental laws of physics (like gravity and the strong and weak nuclear forces) reign throughout the Universe and provide the bedrock upon which cosmological events unfold. However, these laws of physics - representing perhaps the ultimate contextual rubric - are such that they have generated new informational systems like those of elemental physics, chemistry, genetics, biology and the mind etc, which I outlined in the previous chapter and which I described as being formal informational systems in this chapter. These informational systems have themselves allowed new laws to emerge. This is also undeniable. Formal systems like genetics, and the English language can in no way be totally reduced to physics. Nor can consciousness be reduced to physics. And yet physics and the fundamental laws which govern physics have 'encouraged' these subsequent systems to emerge.
Laws are essentially grammar-like because they govern the way information flows and integrates within different language-like informational systems. Thus, once new forms/patterns/architectures of information have arisen within the Universal Computation, new laws appear to emerge which control the relations between those novel forms i.e. new grammars arise. This is an important point to bear in mind when we talk of the laws of physics, for one might be suspicious that physical law alone is sufficient to cause, say, the evolution of life. It is rather that the laws of physics have allowed new laws to emerge once new forms of information have come into being. In this sense, the laws of physics are primary, they are the fundamental grammar so to speak, or fundamental pattern, which has facilitated all else of interest. This is somewhat reminiscent of the role of the octave in music. The octave defines music since it holds all the major notes within it and specifies the vibrational relations between those notes. Once the fundamental octave system has been specified, then all music, all those compositions and melodies we love, can be generated out of that basic system. The same principle applies to chess of course. Once the rules are created, then every chess game, whether a classic, an epic, or an embarrassment, can be generated from those basic rules.
The laws of physics, such as they are, require an initial input state in which to manifest themselves. This initial state would appear to be the initial conditions at the time of the alleged big bang, conditions which many cosmologists have argued had to have been highly specific in order that the Universe evolve in the way it has. Here we face a deep mystery. Why that particular set of initial conditions, and why those laws of physics?
In most of his books, Paul Davies always seems to conclude that the Universe appears to be a 'bit fishy', or that there is definitely 'something going on behind the scenes'. Davies refuses to accept that the laws of physics and the initial conditions just happen to have been that way. It appears 'too good to be true', especially since we are around to speculate upon it. Either one accepts these fundamental properties of Nature as being unexplainable 'brute facts', or one can try and account for them in some kind of metaphysical way.
As we are once more entering unusual territory, lets quickly re-cap. We have been trying to understand reality as an on-going computation in which all the Universe's information is being relentlessly processed via countless state transitions. This informational process has led to the formation of galaxies, stars, planets, life, Homo sapiens, consciousness, and subsequently conscious reflection upon the nature of galaxies, stars, planets, life......etc. In itself the existence of such patterning is astonishing enough. But we have also concluded that such interesting and creative outputs are entirely dependent upon the laws of physics and the initial input conditions, and that these are special in some way; at least special in the sense that they have produced enduring forms of information such as you and I.
If this line of reasoning already suggests the presence of a God in some fashion, then it is because our vocabulary is severely limited when it comes to discussing these types of issue. This is a relatively new area of thought, for only in the last decade or so have scientists begun to seriously contend with why things are the way they are, with why the Universe appears to be somewhat fishy. These are legitimate questions to ask, though they extend well beyond the limited scope of science.
I believe that since we are inextricably caught up in the Universal Computation, wherever it might be leading, then it is surely in our interests to confront this state of affairs. In fact, we should demand to be enlightened as to what is really going on here. Then again, marches and demonstrations in which banners are held aloft bearing the legend WHAT IS THE POINT OF THIS UNIVERSAL COMPUTATION WE ARE ALL IN? are unlikely to yield answers. Indeed, as I have made clear, natural entheogens and their ability to foster transcendental forms of cognition are perhaps the greatest tools at hand for coming to terms with such questions about reality. Create the right sort of biochemical alchemy, bring the right sort of natural ingredients into place, and information seems to conveniently orchestrate itself into patterns of deep understanding. The method perhaps whereby Nature resolves an understanding of itself through the vehicle of consciousness.
However, before we go on to form some kind of conclusion from our informational/computational view of things, it will be useful here to show in more detail how the computational processing of information according to a few very basic rules can nonetheless yield organised forms and structures. In particular I would like to welcome to this chapter the extraordinary world of the cellular automaton. This is not as dull as it sounds and, since such a system is simple to grasp, it lends itself well to our computational/informational paradigm.
A cellular automaton is a computational-cum-informational system able to yield life-like phenomena, and is therefore a model which captures, at least in part, Nature's life-making capacity. Oddly enough, the study of such systems has its roots in a novel Mexican mushroom, only this time the mushroom in question is the malignant mushroom cloud of the atomic bomb.
The hydrogen bomb was created in the army laboratories of Los Alamos in New Mexico as part of America's Manhattan Project. In fact, it was in response to the cautionary word of Einstein himself that the USA originally began to attempt the cracking of the atom for weaponry purposes. In 1939 Einstein, who was then seeking asylum in the USA, had written to president Roosevelt concerning Germany's widespread and zealous search for uranium. It was painfully clear to Einstein that the implications of his E=MC2 equation were being followed through to their ultimately explosive end and that therefore the USA would do well to keep abreast of this disturbing development. On the strength of Einstein's warning the USA galvanised themselves into developing an atom bomb before Germany managed it and thus the Manhattan Project was born.
It was precisely at this time, the early 1940's, that computers first made their appearance having just then been invented. One of them, aptly named MANIAC (mathematical analyser, numerical integrator, and computer) was used in the Manhattan Project in order to speed up the calculations necessary to produce a fully working atomic bomb. By August of 1945 two such devices had been 'successfully' detonated over Japan.
MANIAC was supervised at Los Alamos by the mathematician John Von Neumann. Although Von Neumann was a mathematical wizard, his ethical stance was a little questionable. Not only was he an extremely vocal advocate for the total nuclear destruction of Russia before they got to develop a nuclear capability, and not only did he feel that it was safe to carry out and closely observe nuclear test explosions (he was later to die of bone cancer, probably caused from witnessing nuclear explosions at Bikini atoll), he even devised plans to dye the polar ice-caps in order to melt them.
Despite these cheery idiosyncrasies, it was Von Neumann who first began to study the computational properties of cellular automata on the bulky computers at Los Alamos. Von Neumann had always been fascinated by the idea of self-replicating machines, though he believed that ultimately this was not possible using only vacuum tubes, transistors and the like. However, by utilising the new computers that were at hand, Von Neumann was able to implement a computer program in which simulated life forms were able to replicate themselves. The program was the original cellular automaton. That these self-replicating computer-generated entities were not made of flesh or machine parts did not matter since it was their logical and organisational structure which defined them. This was one of the first real insights into the simulational power of computers. They could create convincing forms of life.
Von Neumann's work was given a whole new lease of life (literally) by Cambridge mathematician John Conway, who, in 1970, invented a cellular automaton called the Game of Life. The game is deceptively simple, yet it is able to generate an endless amount of complexity and variation. It also mirrors the computational quality of biological life itself.
The Game of Life is referred to as a cellular automaton because it proceeds within a chessboard-like grid of cells, and because the program governing the way in which the game progresses is entirely automatic. The Game of Life consists of just 3 rules which are applied again and again to the current state of the cells in the grid. Cells are either occupied or not which means the system holds binary values. Cells are digital, on or off, alive or dead. These are the 3 miserably simple rules:
1. If an occupied cell has precisely three occupied neighbours then the cell remains occupied.
2. A cell remains unchanged (occupied or not) if precisely two of the neighbouring cells are occupied.
3. In all other cases the cell becomes or remains empty.
An initial configuration of on/off cells is provided as input and then the 3 seemingly vacuous rules are applied. The output from this process will yield a new configuration of on/off cells. The rules are applied repeatedly, hundreds or even thousands of times. The results can be quite spectacular. Not only do slightly different start configurations yield wildly different outputs, various patterns can form which endure through the game. If the successive states of the cellular automaton are presented rapidly on a computer screen, then a Life movie can be watched as it progresses. Patterns emerge, move around, collide, mutate, and some are even able to replicate themselves.
Conway's Game of Life grabbed media attention in 1971 through coverage in the pages of the Scientific American (it can still be found, often as a screen-saver program for personal computers). The various Life objects began to acquire names. Shuttles, beehives, and flotillas were born. Ships, boats, barges, and blocks were readily observed and documented as they meandered about the 2-dimensional Life plain.
The gene-like pattern with the capacity to replicate that sometimes emerged in the primordial Life soup was named the 'glider'. Gliders were observed to collide with one another resulting in the formation of a 'glider gun' which shot out further gliders as though they were its offspring. It was even discovered that glider guns could be set up in such a way as to constitute a virtual computer! Conway proved that processions of gliders were able to code binary numbers, and that logic gates could be formed by making glider streams collide with one another in a specific way. The result is startling. The Life computer can itself embody yet another computer, and so on ad infinitum. A digital information process within a process within a process.....
What was originally so fascinating about the lifelike patterns that evolved in the Game of Life, was their origin. From initial simplicity, complexity was born. Furthermore, cellular automata were clearly computational, whether they were played out on a computer, a chessboard, or on graph paper. Via state transitions, information was being processed throughout the game. There was an unavoidable implication that life itself might represent a similar information processing system. If so, then the Universe could most definitely be understood in computational terms.
Stephen Wolfram of the Institute of Advanced Study in Princeton summed up the computational implications of cellular automata in the Scientific American in 1984:
"It is presumably true that any physical process can be described as an algorithm {a condensed set of computational rules} , and so any physical process can be represented as a computational process.... In cellular automata the correspondence between physical and computational processes is particularly clear. A cellular automaton can be regarded as a model of a physical system, but it can also be regarded as a computational system closely analogous to an ordinary digital computer. The sequence of initial cell values in a cellular automaton can be understood as abstract data or information, much like the sequence of binary digits in the memory of a digital computer. During the evolution of a cellular automaton the information is processed: the values of the cells are modified according to definite rules. Similarly, the digits stored in the memory of the digital computer are modified by rules built into the central processing unit of the computer."
We have now arrived back at the Universe-as-a-computation scenario. An on-going computational system, the Game of Life vividly demonstrates how initial conditions and some basic state transition rules can give rise to organised complexity and the emergent phenomenon of self-replication.
The real computational game of life in which we have been born similarly depends upon a well defined initial state at some distant moment in the past and a set of rules, in this case the rules being the laws of physics and constants of Nature which act upon the current universal state. We can see that the Game of Life cellular automaton is an on-going computation in which its formal informational state changes as the computation progresses. Likewise, we can see that some of the informational patterns or forms which arise in this computation are remarkably lifelike, especially the ones with a capacity to replicate. Now, if this entire system is to be understood in computational/informational terms, then clearly the Universe at large can be approached in the same way. The only difference is that we are inside the Universal Computation, much as gliders are inside of cellular automata.
The case is still not watertight however. Cellular automata, and indeed any computation proceeding within a computer, move in discrete steps. If the Universe is an on-going computation, then, strictly speaking, it ought to proceed in discrete state transitions, frame by frame as it were. Mathematician Martin Gardiner who originally introduced the Game of Life to readers of the Scientific American, was one of the first to speculate upon this. He wrote:
"There is even the possibility that space-time itself is granular, composed of discrete units, and that the Universe....is a cellular automaton run by an enormous computer."
In other words, if the Universe is a computation, there is likely to be a smallest unit of time (time is granular) which cannot be broken down further. Such a hypothetical smallest unit of time is known as a chronon. A chronon is an absolute moment in which the Universe is in a particular state. This state will then proceed by a discrete 'jump' to form the next chronon according to whatever laws are operating on that state, much like the movement of electrons which are supposed to discretely jump from one orbit to another. There are believed to be no intermediary states between successive 'jumps'.
One might now be tempted to ask why we experience time as flowing. There is no surprise here, for to talk of discrete time is like talking of the successive frames of a film. If the frames are presented quickly enough the illusion of continuity becomes apparent. Such an illusion of continuity is also manifest in the Game of Life. The state transitions of Life automata can be processed by a computer so quickly as to give rise to patterns which, on the computer monitor, appear to flow across the 2-dimensional playing field. In fact, all computer displays move in discrete stages, even in the most advanced programs. For instance, computer games might look as if they are flowing smoothly, yet in actuality they are proceeding in rapid state transitional jumps (at the current time this fact of computational 'jumpiness' is a problem being tackled by virtual reality engineers who are striving to speed up their computerised VR graphic displays in order to make their necessary complex virtual worlds flow smoothly like the real world).
The 'illusion' of flowing forms which seem to constitute the Universe must therefore be due to the presence of stable patterns within the computation, patterns which endure from one moment to the next. If one were to take one snapshot slice of reality, one chronon as it were, then one would not be able to properly discern any patterns, rather the patterns we observe, like planets and people, are patterned structures which emerge over a multiple succession of such slices. Likewise, I would assume that consciousness seems to flow precisely because it is an informational pattern which endures across successive frames of granular time.
There have been attempts to quantify the hypothetical chronon. For what its worth, it is assumed to be the shortest conceivable length divided by the velocity of light. For obvious reasons, I'll take this definition on trust. Anyhow, this yields what is sometimes called the 'Planck time', and this may represent the elusive chronon. Intuitively it seems there must be discrete time, for otherwise a second could be divided into an infinity of moments. If so, then it is hard to see how time appears to flow at all. An echo of this 'timely dilemma' is found in particle physics. Are there any smallest bits, or does scale and size continue indefinitely? As with time, it makes more sense to think of a smallest unit of matter/information and a smallest unit of time. The case remains open however, though it is doubtful that any measuring instrument could be built to observe the discrete moves in time. Alternatively, it may still be possible to hold the computational view of the Universe with non-discrete time. This is a task someone else can tackle.
Once more assuming that reality is indeed a kind of on-going computation in which language-like information is everywhere being processed, and in which the moment 'now' is the leading edge of the computation, we can return to the question of its software, that is, the laws of physics which determine how the Universal Computation progresses. As I said, the nature of the Universe is completely tied up with the particular laws of physics and the initial conditions prevailing at the beginning of time. Now, just how significant or random are these two sets of variables?
With the Game of Life, Conway's three rules or laws were specifically designed to ensure that enduring and interesting forms of information could arise as the game proceeded. The 3 rules were chosen from what is basically an endless amount of possible rules. Indeed, it took Conway a great deal of time to discover these 3 rules. If you just took any old rules and applied them to the game then nothing much of interest would happen. And if anything of interest did crop up it would only be likely to vanish soon after. It is because Conway's Life rules were so permanent, precise, and constraining, that his game took off and was ultimately able to yield lifelike forms. Moreover, to get really interesting results (like getting a virtual computer to emerge), one must engineer the initial state, set it all up in advance so to speak, in order that the system develops in the way you wish. Conway was clearly God of the Game of Life, or at least his intelligence was. For a glider speeding about the Life plain, it could do a lot worse than worship the great and holy Conway of Cambridge as its creator.
So, what about the laws of physics and the initial conditions in the real game of life? Just how precise do they need to be in order that we are now here to reflect upon them? This is somewhat hard to ascertain since we only know of this Universe. We can't examine other Universes with slightly different laws and initial states in order to see if they also bring forth life and consciousness. However, many scientists have concluded that for conscious life as we know it to have evolved, then the laws of physics and the initial conditions had to have been exactly the way they are. Indeed, it seems that there are many 'cosmic coincidences' which have 'conspired' to elicit life.
Davies, for example, has commented upon the combined effects of hydrogen, sub-atomic neutrinos, and physical law in their impact upon the emergence of organic life:
"It is particularly striking how processes that occur on a microscopic scale - say, in nuclear physics - seem to be fine-tuned to produce interesting and varied effects on a much larger scale....thus we find that the force of gravity combined with the thermodynamical and mechanical properties of hydrogen gas are such as to create large numbers of balls of gas. These balls are large enough to trigger nuclear reactions, but not so large as to collapse rapidly into black holes. In this way stable stars are born."
Davies goes on to describe how some stars eventually explode, and how the remains of such supernovae form the basis of planets like the Earth. Apparently, every heavy atom in our bodies had to go through many such supernova cycles before ending up as an integral part of terrestrial life. The force of an exploding star derives, in part, from the presence of neutrinos, which Davies refers to as 'ghostly entities'. He concludes:
"The life cycles of stars provide just one example of the ingenious and seemingly contrived way in which the large-scale and small-scale aspects of physics are closely intertwined to produce complex variety in nature."
In other words, the long and complex chain of state transitions of the Universal Computation which eventually yielded life and consciousness, was determined by the precise manner in which the universal dialogue unfolded. An appropriate set of grammatical rules/physical laws which would eventually generate life and consciousness were seemingly 'set up' at the very beginning of time. Once the laws of physics and an initial input state had been specified, they eventually went on to facilitate the evolution of planets and people made of stardust. Even dour Mr Sceptic must concur that this has been a somewhat fortuitous turn of events. One has to be near dead not to marvel at least a little at our conscious existence at this stage in the Universal Computation.
Consider also the so-called constants of Nature, like the mass of the electron, and Newton's gravitational constant. Their value is considered absolutely precise, and they determine how the language of physics is conducted. These constants also seem to be fine-tuned to allow organic life to emerge. If their value was but a fraction different then life as we know could not exist. Some scientists have introduced what they have called the strong anthropic principle to account for this phenomenon. This principle holds that the fundamental constants of Nature have the value they do precisely to allow life and consciousness to develop somewhere and somewhen in the Universe. It sounds like design. Needless to say, other scientists heave at such talk, preferring to seek a less astounding explanation.
The 'life-friendly' nature of Nature is seen elsewhere. The element carbon which is so crucial for life on Earth, is generated inside stars by an extraordinary series of what Davies has termed 'lucky flukes'. It just so happens that normally rare high speed collisions of three helium nuclei are favoured to occur within stars due to fortuitous quantum effects. The resulting carbon which is formed eventually gets blasted out into space when stars go supernova. Since carbon is the basis of all organic chemistry, we really can thank our 'lucky stars' for its biologically constructive presence here on Earth.
And let us not forget good old H20. Water is indispensable for life. The various unique physical and chemical properties of water like its role in photosynthesis, in nutrient transport, in osmotic cellular processes, in heat reduction via sweat evaporation, in encouraging the organic creativity of the primeval soup, and so on, make water a form of fluidic information fundamental for life.
Even the expansion of the Universe has to be constrained so as to allow time enough for galaxies, planets, and life to form. If the expansion of the Universe were too fast then galaxies could not form and if the expansion were too slow then it would re-collapse before anything interesting happened. According to some estimates, if the velocity of expansion in the first second of the big bang was a mere trillionth slower, then the Universe would have collapsed within 50 million years, during which time the temperature would have remained above 10,000 degrees, clearly a state unfit to yield life as we know it.
These are but a handful of the countless examples which show how finely tuned the Universe is in order that it bring forth organic life. This situation echoes the precise conditions (the exact three rules) needed in the Game of Life in order that the cellular automaton brings forth elaborately organised forms. In both cases, the real world and the model world, it is clear that specific fundamental laws in association with specific fundamental constants and precise initial conditions are needed so as to ensure that organised forms evolve.
We might protest here and argue that life has merely exploited the conditions which happen to prevail. In that case life will have just seized upon whatever 'chances' are on offer, where 'chances' is the appropriate word. Life might therefore reflect what can be achieved in an essentially uncontrived Universal Computation. But how can we be positive that life and consciousness could have evolved in 'any old kind' of Universe? Could one just throw some dice to determine, say, the mathematical nature of the laws of physics, and then still expect to get life and consciousness at some stage in the resulting reality? Could one think of any number between one and a million, add five, randomly shuffle the decimal point, designate this number as the value of a constant, and then still expect to come up trumps with the subsequent Universe?
It appears impossible to conclusively prove that an evolutionary process in which consciousness is eventually formed has to have had our particular type of Universe with its particular initial conditions, physical laws, constants and so on. And yet it is easy to imagine stupid and very silly Universes in which nothing of interest happens. Letting our imagination go, we can picture Universes in which the laws of physics stop complex structures forming, or in which the constants of Nature force the Universe to form into a bland conglomeration of stagnant banality. More chaotically, we can imagine Universes with little or no law and order at all. Or, even more absurdly, we can imagine a Universe in which life starts only to be inevitably destroyed soon after by some immutable principle of physical law. There are zillions and untold trillions of possible boring lifeless Universes, just as there are zillions and untold trillions of possible uncreative cellular automata. So, why is our Universal Computation so very, very interesting? And why us?
One 'fast-food' solution is to suppose that the Universe expands from a big bang only to eventually contract into a 'big crunch' at some later stage. Out of a big crunch a new Universe evolves and the cycle continues, only this time the successive Universe has slightly different laws and initial conditions. This 'pulsation of Universes' is presumed to have been going on forever without any reason whatsoever - an infinite chain of Universes with no end and no beginning. One of these, ours, just happens to be one of the significant ones amongst a literal infinity of boring ones. Aw shucks, there is no significance to our reality after all....
A similar scenario to this is the arch-cunning Multiple Universe theory touted by a disturbing number of quantum physicists. They view the Universe dividing whenever a quantum event takes place in which more than one outcome is possible. This happens more than a lot. Thus, the Universe is forever branching into an endless amount of Universes. Again, we merely happen to be in one of the more interesting ones.
Finally, there is the 'birthing Universe' theory, also of appeal to some cosmologists. This imaginatively fertile scenario views black holes giving birth to new Universes with slightly different laws and constants, one of which.....well, you know the score by now.
Are the above proposals tenable in explaining our very special Universe? On reflection, these 'you want it your way, you got it' schemes are a trifle absurd, for in them there must be, by definition, not only an infinity of Universes but an infinity of ones like our own, differing perhaps only in some minor detail like, say, your surname. In one of this infinity of Universes, or perhaps in 582, each of my readers will be called Mr or Mrs Banana. But, since we can never ever observe or experience these other Universes (apart from in Star Trek or the Twilight Zone) then what on earth is the point in invoking them? In other words, is it really legitimate to speak about that which cannot in any way be verified? I think not.
The popular principle of Occam's Razor (perhaps we should now call it Occam's Laser) holds that one should always stick to the simplest theory possible whenever one has to choose from amongst competing theories. This tenet has come to attain a kind of hallowed status within science these days. If we introduce it here, then we see that there could be no more blatant departure from the use of Occam's razor than in an inference that a literal infinity of unobservable Universes exists. And even if you did still choose one of the Multiple Universe scenarios, it will still not explain why the infinite chain exists in the first place !!! Basically, what all of these imaginative Multiple Universe scenarios reveal is that physicists and cosmologists are in expletively, and I mean expletively, deep water when it comes to accounting for the 'why' of our most creative Universe.
Alternatively, some people just shrug their shoulders at the presence of life and consciousness in the Universe, happy to heed the Beatles and just let it be, let it be. As long as dinner is on the table and there's a good film on TV, who cares why the reality process is so organised and integrated? And as for the agnostic who denies that one can acquire knowledge about the ultimate nature of the Universe, unless they have explored all possible approaches to the mystery, then they are merely being lethargic, happy to shrug and shrug again at unexplainable brute facts. Alas, we have no time for such shruggers here.
I happen to think that it is a bit of an intellectual cop-out to dismiss the finely tuned software running our Universe as being no more than a brute fact to be mindlessly swallowed and forgotten about. It also betrays the inquisitive and adventurous spirit of our species. It is not just that a Universe should exist in the first place (why not absolute nothingness - it seems a lot more simple), and it is not just that such a Universe should endure for so long. Why should the something which does exist be so darn complex and reach a state where it can contemplate itself through the mind of Homo sapiens? How come we ourselves are so highly tuned to the mystery?
Ultimately, the choice as to what significance one attaches to our Universe is a personal one. One can only mull over the facts about reality, the rules of the game as it were, and then interpret them in the light of contemplation. One's unique life experiences will also shape ones conclusions about the nature of reality. If you tend to see and be awed by beauty in Nature wherever you might look, then you are perhaps more likely to be dissatisfied with brute-factual explanations. What I have tried to highlight is the sheer fantastic nature of Nature for reality deserves this at least. For my part, I side with Davies. There is most definitely something fishy going on both in and around us. What is more, this fishiness is very subtle and mystifying. And a source of wonder.
At the end of The Mind of God, Davies sticks his neck out and suggests that one cannot get at the ultimate meaning of reality by logical and rational thought alone. These are brave words coming from a respectable scientist with an award-winning reputation to defend (he has money to fall back on though). And Davies knows that an appeal to other forms of thought for ascertaining answers to the 'why' of the Universe, is controversial to say the least. He writes:
"Although many metaphysical and theistic theories seem contrived or childish, they are not obviously more absurd than the belief that the universe exists in the form it does, reasonlessly. It seems at least worth trying to construct a metaphysical theory that reduces some of the arbitrariness of the world. But in the end a rational explanation for the world in the sense of a closed and complete system of logical truths is almost certainly impossible....If we wish to progress beyond, we have to embrace a different concept of "understanding" from that of rational explanation. Possibly the mystical path is a way to such an understanding."
There ends Davies' exploration of God's mind. Whatever one concludes about the fine-tuning of the Universal Computation in which we find ourselves, there will always be some factor involved which cannot be grasped by our normal conception since the factor in question is uncaused. If we side with the clumsy and arguably nutty Multiple Universe scenario we must admit that the infinite multitude of Universes were not caused by anything, that they just are, were, and will always be. And if, like myself, you opt for just this one remarkable Universe, there is still the matter of the initial set-up, which also indicates some uncaused factor. In other words, there must always have been an eternal 'something' which existed. A chain of cause-and-effects cannot be extended back in time indefinitely. Eventually we will have to invoke something which cannot be explained in terms of something else. One cannot escape this disturbing yet mildly innervating conclusion.
If we want answers to these most difficult questions we need to be armed with new forms of consciousness. Our normal frames of thought cannot hope to cope with forms of understanding which involve notions of eternity and the like. And here we must once more face up to the potential power of Nature's entheogenic allies in elucidating the living mystery of existence. The knowledge attained during the entheogenic experience, as well as the revelatory insights gained through superconscious perception of the world, arguably represents the most direct path alluded to by Davies for accessing information relating to the 'why' of reality. As far as I am aware, Davies is not cued up on the epistemological virtues of visionary agents, for he explicitly states that he has never had a mystical experience. Open-minded scientists like himself would therefore do well to explore natural entheogens like psilocybin, since their numinous effects are in the here and now and not limited to the pages of mystical religious literature.
Entheogenic substances can provide new and enhanced states of consciousness, and it is precisely in such a state that one may come to glimpse an answer or two to the riddle of reality. Of course, if you are happy with a simple god scenario in which an omnipotent being just sits around and studies its creation then good for you. However, many of us will want to pursue the mystery further, hoping to attain some deeper insight into the nature of reality. Without doubt, entheogens can be utilised in such a pursuit.
As the first part of this book made clear, entheogens like psilocybin are where its at in the quest to find the ultimate meaning of this Universal Computation within which we are so intimately writ. Nature's entheogens work, just as mathematics works. And it is precisely because they do work, and because they do allow one to confront big truths, that they elicit fear and mistrust in the West. As McKenna attests, much of the new-age movement for instance - ostensibly a movement devoted to forging spiritual awareness - is a move away from Gaia's entheogens:
"People are in love with the journey. People love seeking answers. If you were to suggest to them that the time of seeking is over and that the chore is now to face the answer, thats more of a challenge! Anyone can sweep up around the ashram for a dozen years while congratulating themselves that they are following Baba into enlightenment. It takes courage to take psychedelics - real courage. Your stomach clenches, your palms grow damp, because you realise this is real - this is going to work. Not in 12 years, not in 20 years, but in an hour! What I see in the whole spiritual enterprise is a great number of people supporting themselves in one way or another on the basis of their lack of success. Were they ever to succeed, these enterprises would all be put out of business. But no one's in a hurry for that."
A somewhat harsh evaluation perhaps but the point is taken. We are so immersed in the hypnotic spell of our material culture that we are unused to forms of perception and conception in which our normal frames of reference fade into obscurity. For in the innervating and inspirational glow of the psilocybin-induced neo-shamanic experience, we suddenly find ourselves transported to a spiritually charged realm where metaphysics and theological theory dissipate, giving way instead to a direct perception of the Other, a Gaian Mind that somehow holds the keys to the purpose of life and consciousness.
With the gradual emergence of information relating to the entheogen-based shamanic experience, we now have a raised platform upon which to stand in order to further our understanding of the nature of reality and consciousness. Just as Newton claimed to have stood on the shoulders of giants in order to discern more clearly the nature of the Universe around him, we have now reached the point in our culture where we can re-launch the shamanic spirit now vanishing from the rainforests of the Amazon and use it to blaze a trail into the depths of the Mystery. Entheogenic agents, especially the fungal sort indigenous to European and American shores, can yield knowledge otherwise unobtainable via the traditional approaches of our perception and conception. Herein lies their potential virtue. Until we take up Nature's entheogenic option, our understanding of reality will remain incomplete.
We have seen how the Universe is a kind of utterance built upon the integration of information, that information is everywhere being processed, and we have seen how consciousness is itself a kind of 'finer' form of information arising from the wealth of informational relations converging in the neuronal architecture of the brain. Thus we are like playing pieces in a universal game of chess, pieces whose function, role, and meaning are determined according to our positional relationship to all else. And, in our attempt to apprehend this computational game, we have reached the point where we wonder at the ultimate software whose rules govern the field of play.
If, as seems highly probable, the major pattern-inducing properties of the Universe are not accidental, then we might discern some will or intention lying at the very heart of Nature. We might wish to shake hands with Nature and say 'nice work' or 'good game'. I have to employ a modicum of humour here since the situation we are now in is somewhat bizarre. For we really need to somehow get outside of the Universal Computation and see where, if anywhere, it is headed. Since a speedy flow of informational integration appears to be focused upon our planet, then it must surely be directed towards some culmination point. What then is the final output of this particular evolving part of the Universal Computation to be? What on Earth is the point? To where are we being drawn? What pattern has yet to evolve or be resolved?
Before we move on to a final look at the implications of the neo-shamanic experience for an understanding of 'the meaning of it all', let me summarise the heady ideas outlined in the last few chapters in the form of a vivid visual metaphor. This metaphor embraces everything of significance in the computational/informational paradigm, allowing us to view everything at once, in one great image. So, relax and get your mind's eye ready as I present to you the River of Life thought experiment (incidentally, I came up with this metaphor independently of evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins who uses a somewhat similar metaphor in his book River out of Eden).
Picture a big lake of still water. This is an informational void, endowed only with capacity and potential. All the myriad particles of the water can be likened to potential bits of information, though all are in the same uniform state. There is just still water, no forms whatsoever, nothing of interest, no dialogue-like flow of information or anything. Still, it is an initial state; the lake of formless water exists. You and I creatively imagine/format it.
Now, take a monstrously-sized stick and begin to stir the lake. The stirring action corresponds to a law or rule or intent operating upon the state of the water in the lake. Already, the stirring action begins to create currents, eddies, and vortices of turbulence. As you continue to stir up the lake, evermore of these forms and patterns emerge in the water. Notice that the ripples, patterns, and waves which are forming and which flow across and beneath the surface of the lake are all facets of one whole entity - the entire lake. No one part of the water is isolated, rather there is just one fluid system swirling and slopping about. This is the continuous and non-bounded informational 'stuff' of the lake which has been transformed from a featureless state to an in-formed state via the stirring action (the rules or laws operating on the water). If you cannot picture the water in the lake as being an interconnected continuum then scale the lake down to a bathtub of water. When you slosh the water around in a bath, it is clear that there is just one fluid entity lapping about, no single part is isolated.
If we continue to stir the lake in a particular way, then more and more complex patterns may emerge. Let us also allow the water in the lake to be drained by allowing it to flow out and form a river, the leading edge of which contains the most self-organised patterns so far generated within the water. Swirling vortices might form which persist indefinitely. Indeed, we could imagine these forms meeting with one another in the frothy forefront of the rushing river. Somehow they may be able to replicate themselves according to the precise manner in which we have done the stirring. So now we have a flowing river containing replicating patterns of fluidic information bearing a definite language-like relation to one another. When such forms meet, a kind of dialogue ensues in which the forms in-form each other creating yet more diverse patterns.
We can add to the laws inherent in our stirring by incorporating some new laws in the form of some precisely shaped rocks over which the river flows (akin to constants). These rocks will further determine what kinds of forms arise in the water. As the river progresses over the contrived rocks, perhaps there may be different types of swirl generated, such that new forms emerge even more complex than their predecessors. As the amount of forms increase, so too will the amount of relations between them increase likewise. And yet they are all remain part of the same integrated watery informational stuff. What one pattern does at one part of the river will eventually be felt everywhere else for there is but a single interconnected system in which all these events unfold.
Let a long span of time elapse. If we look to the leading edge of the river we might now find that the patterns which have emerged due to the precise stirring and the precisely carved rocks, have evolved to be truly lifelike. Forms which bear a specific and enduring role in relation to the rest of the water are organism-like. It does not matter that they consist only of water, what matters is their complex form/structure and their formal relations to the rest of the water.
Now we reach the climax of our metaphor. Picture the river cascading as a waterfall over some rocky cliff-face. Take a close slow-motion look at the leading splashes, the leading edge of the creative flow of water. Elaborate human-like life forms have now emerged representative of the most evolved patterns of flowing information. Consciousness itself might eventually be formed within these informational creatures, consciousness being yet another pattern born out of informational fluid, albeit of a highly evolved kind dependent upon a huge array of informational relations converging upon it.
History foams into being across the face of rocks, cities flow in and out of existence, cultures come and go in the complex splashes emanating from the onrush of water. And at the very edge of the flow we see informational entities like ourselves. And yes, such conscious beings might even come to wonder at the nature of the stuff around them, and conclude that it is all but one integrating, confluential substance - that of fluidic information in process.
It is important to hold in mind that the eventually conscious property of the fluidic flow of information was determined by the precise way in which we stirred the water, and the precise form of the rocks over which the river flowed. It was not accidental, rather the flow was deliberately organised and integrated in such a way as to produce, eventually, consciousness itself, the most evolved kind informational pattern. In this way, the river of information has come to know itself and its origins. The river literally woke up to its true nature.
Perhaps then, the actual river of organic life which has spawned us has already attained its ultimate purpose, for we are the means by which Nature has become self-aware. Does this mean that we should now sit back comfortably because all is complete? Is the goal of Nature self-awareness of the kind we have already attained? Surely not. There must be more to it than that. I would surmise that the 'climax' of reality has yet to become manifest, at least in our neck of the woods. After all, complex computer programs often yield a final output, this result depending upon what the user wanted from the program. In the river analogy above, this would mean that there would be some final climactic state emerging at the bottom of the waterfall, a state willed into being.
Because the information-integration processes displayed by our culture in the wake of evolving computer technology and computerised telecommunication systems shows no signs of abating and appears to be speeding up at an unprecedented rate, and because of the type of information accessed during the entheogenic experience, I believe that the destined output of the Universal Computation in terms of our biosphere, or Gaia, is something that human culture will eventually usher in. In other words, the 'intent' of Nature is now being revealed through the evolutionary development of human culture and human consciousness. If so, this would imply that conscious human culture with its attendant technology is a kind of penultimate function within a certain part of the Universal Computation, just as different organs play differentially timed functional roles in the developing body. This is the sort of speculative idea taken up in the next chapter.