Some time ago I was in an online discussion group about the application of chaos theory to psychology. I made the acquaintance of Sandi Greer, a family therapist in St. Louis. We corresponded about many subjects and she shared her ideas about fairness. She had coauthored papers about the different types of fairness. I was quite intrigued by her ideas and, to this day, I regularly think and speak about the different types of fairness.

Fairness is one of those words that people seem to think refers to a single simple idea. However, it is like a painting that makes sense  from a distance but dissolves into confusion when you approach it. Sandi pointed out the following three distinct categories of fairness.

Equality:

This is the name I have given to the type of fairness that says that everyone should get a “fair” share or an equal portion of something. This idea is the basis of our democratic system that says everyone should be treated equally.

Mercy:

This is the name I have given to the idea that people should get what they need. Fairness here is getting something extra because you have a deficit when compared to most people. The old Marxist slogan “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” echoes this type. Someone once said that you could judge a society by how it treated the worst off citizens.

Justice:

This is the name I have given to the concept of getting what you have coming to you. This can be positive such as being rewarded for your effort. Or it can be negative such as being punished for transgressing some rule or law. There is an old expression that says that you “reap what you sow”.
This model of three types of fairness has many applications:

Family:

The kids each get an equal portion of cake.

The baby gets more attention because of its needs.

The father gets more because he is working to support the family.

Nation:

Everyone is equal under the law.

The handicapped and poor get extra consideration.

People are paid for work and punished for breaking the law.

Religion:

God loves all equally.

God is merciful

God is just and there will be a final Judgment

When people argue over what is “fair”, it is often a matter of each person using a different meaning of fair.

I suggest that these three types of fairness can be seen as three dimensions and that a particular person’s attitude with respect to a situation could be indicated by a point in a three dimensional space represented by a cube. Another person’s attitude would be different point in the cube. A second cube with two points could be constructed by having each person indicate what they thought was the ideal situation.Finally, each party would rank the importance of the different types of fairness with respect to the situation in question.

Then, with things clarified in this way, a discussion could proceed on what should be done to bring the conflicting parties into greater harmony. Agreement is not guaranteed but at least a lot of confusion could be avoided.

The next time you hear someone say, “That’s not fair”, ask them what type of fairness they are talking about.

About 7 years ago, I was sitting in a movie theater watching a movie called the Thirteenth Floor about some researches who had created a realistic simulated world. They were able to enter it and walk around, interacting with simulated people. Then things started going bad and they found out that they were living in someone else’s simulation.

Simulacron-3

As I watched the movie, I was thinking that it reminded me of a book that I read a long time ago. When the credits rolled, there was the name of the book that I remembered. Simulacron-3 by Daniel Galouye written in 1964 was one of the first descriptions of what we now know as virtual reality.

The Matrix was also released in 1999.

The Matrix

And, of course, there was the famous “holodeck” on the Enterprise in Star Trek: The Next Generation that could let the user enter ficticous  Many other science fiction novels, movies, television shows and cartoons have used the theme of a simulated world so real that the inhabitants don’t realize that it is an illusion.

Holodeck

In 1994, Frank Tipler, an physicist published a book titled “The Physics of Immortality”. His thesis was that at the end of time, an amalgam of biological and artificial intelligences would merge into one super powerful entity who would then simulate all the worlds, ages and entities who had ever existed in the universe.

Tipler and the Omega Point

A trilogy by Frederick Pohl featured two power alien races who were battling each other for control of the universe in order to be the ones who dominated the final fusion they thought was coming at the end of time.

Pohl’s The Far Shore of Time

Ian Banks in the Algebraist suggested that a religion could be created based on the simulation idea that would essentially supercede all other religions because if we were in a simulation then there could be a super powerful being that created and controlled the universe and any particular religion could now be explained scientifically.

Bank’s The Algebraist

Last year, I was surprised to read an article in New Scientist by a philosopher named Nick Bostrom who was seriously proposing that we might be living in some sort of simulation.

Nick Bostrom

He proposed that many technologically sophisticated civilizations in our universe would naturally experiment with simulated worlds. There would be millions or billions of simulations for each “real” world. If it is possible to create self-aware entities in these simulations, then the odds that any particular self-aware entity is “real” are millions or even billions to one. And that includes us.

So, the next question is what do we do about it if we take this idea seriously. Some say that we should just go on living our lives “as if real”. Others say that we should figure out what the purpose of the simulation is and then fulfill it so we don’t get deleted. And some say that we should figure out how to get out of the simulation.

That last idea raises the question of whether or not it would be possible for a simulated entity to escape to a “real” world. Of course, if the ideas in the movies and books at the beginning of this post are a guide, there might be more than one “level” of simulation. In that case, it might be realistic for a simulated entity to move up the chain of simulations.

 Of course, the idea that the world is not “real” is ancient. There was the famous cave analogy of Plato who suggested that what we thought of as the real world was just shadows on a cave wall.

Plato’s Cave

And the Hindus have their Maya, the “veil of illusion”.

Maya and the Veil of Illusion

Sociologists have their “consesus reality”

Consensus Reality

and psychologist have the “brain in a box” problem. They ponder the question of how we could know if we were just a brain in a box with inputs feeding us a simulated world. May be possible but not easy.

The solipsitic philosophy suggest that everything that I think I perceive is just an illusion that I am generating. This idea may seem simple at first but actually creates more questions than it answers.

Solipsism

A weak form of solipsism is certainly true in that our brains generate the illusion of a stable 3 dimensional world from fleeting sense impressions.

So I guess the answer to the question of “Are we living in a simulation” must be YES. However, the more interesting question is “Exactly what kind of simulation is it?

Title is from old joke where a guy asks a woman in a bar if she is free tonight and she says “No, but I am reasonable.” I have been coming across a lot of articles lately that discuss issues involving free will. Since that topic is one of my long time interests, I thought that I would toss out a few of my ideas on the subject.

I see an enormous amount of confusion on the subject. The term is one of those “umbrella” or “suitcase” terms that cover a lot of different meanings for a lot of different folks. People generally mean that they are not being forced to choose a particular alternative but are “free” to make their own choice. No one should want “free will” in an absolute sense. That would mean that you would be free to choose to do something that had NO connection to your circumstances, interests, needs, desires, abilities, resources, etc. In other words, of NO value to you. Obviously, no one has this type of “free will”. Let’s see if we can’t get more detail here. We are constrained in our choices in:

Space – we cannot pop from one point to another without crossing the space between the two point.

Time – we cannot jump from one time to another without living the time between the two moments.

Energy – we cannot exist in the corona of the sun or in the cold of outer space without special protection.

Matter – we cannot survive long without oxygen, water and food. Carbon monoxide will kill us if we inhale enough, we cannot drink liquid nitrogen without damage, etc.

Life – exposure to a host of pathogens – viral and bacterial can seriously harm if not kill us.

Animals and humans – we can be eaten or killed by a number of other creatures if we are careless.

Humans – other human beings can injure or kill us if we are not careful

Culture – If we trespass on customs or laws of society we can be suffer consequences

Personality – a great deal of our reaction to events around us is shaped by our genetics

Habits – we all have many habits that can be extremely difficult to escape

Situation – there are many other constraints on our choices that have to do with such things as needs of family, physical limitations, financial limitations, lack of education, etc.

We each have a small range of choices that we can make without someone or something preventing us or forcing us. If we make choices that are not congruent with our deep sense of who we are, then we can exhaust a certain type of mental energy. So even if nothing else is affecting us, our own  identity can exact a cost for certain choices.

And, in the end, we pay for what ever we choose in one way or another.

Given all this, we definitely do not have “free will” in any significant sense.

One of the fuels for the debates on free will consists of the question of assigning responsibility. If you cannot be held responsible for your choices, should you be punished for breaking the law or social custom. A lot of jurisprudence revolves around trying to figure out just exactly how responsible someone is when a law is broken. Not always an easy :question to answer. So, if I have correctly stated the situation, should people be held accountable for their actions. I would say “yes’. Here is my reasoning:

The human brain is essentially a control system. A society composed of many human beings cannot function unless those control system function correctly in concert. If one of those control systems is involved in a problematic occurrence, then society must investigate to determine whether the control system in question has malfunctioned. If so, can the control system be repaired or reset. If the odd are poor, then the control system should be removed from society.

The bottom line is that if the odds are poor that someone can function according to society’s rules, then that person should be removed from society. This does not depend on the existence of free will.

I usually try to tailor my conversation to the interests of my audience. The problem with starting this blog is that I don’t know who my audience will be. When I was invited to create this blog, I asked what I should write about. The response was that I should just write about what interests me. That covers a lot of territory. 

The first question that had to be answered was what  the title should be. I finally settled on the Nexilist’s Notebook. The word “nexilist” is derived from ” Nexialist”a neologism coined by a science fiction author named A.E. Van Vogt in 1950 novel called “The Voyage of the Space Beagle”.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Voyage_of_the_Space_Beagle

He defined Nexialist as “One skilled in the science of joining together in an orderly fashion the knowledge of one field of learning with that of other fields”. I changed the spelling because 1) I think his spelling is awkward, 2) I think my spelling is a better use of the root nexus with the usual “ist” ending of a practitioner such as “chem-ist”, 3) Nexialist was already in wide use and the domain names were taken.

I have been interested in interdisciplinary studies since I was a kid. So this blog will cover a wide variety of subjects including how everything is connected. Politics, society, psychology, technology, religion, myth, dreams, the arts, and winning at the game of life. Welcome to my blog.