Space: The Boring Frontier

This year I fell for the Mars Hoax. Hard. I bought a telescope and planetarium software to plan a viewing of the red planet with my eldest son. As we scanned the skies using the software, we were able to look at anything and then magnify it into a large, beautiful image. We had a great time. As the image of Mars was growing on our computer, through magnification, we started to pretend that we were in the cockpit of a ship traveling there. "Mars needs women!" I shouted. We giggled with glee. "O Noes!11! we're gonna crash!!! AHHHH!" Great fun.

The software told us that Mars was to rise above Bloomington's horizon at 3:30am this morning, so yesterday we planned a breakfast and he came up with the idea of Solar System pancakes: Whipped cream for the Sun, M&Ms for the planets (Earth blue, Mars red, Mercury orange) and drizzled chocolate for the orbits. Yum!

Last night at about 6pm a friend suggested it might all be lies. Indeed. LIES! Those damn internets.

Now I had the dilemma of explaining all of this to a child.

I sat down with my son and said, "Look, it turns out that Mars is going to be really far away. We won't be able to see it."

"That's OK," he said.

I said, "No really. It won't be there at all. There's no reason to get up early. But we can still get up early anyway and have solar system pancakes."

"That's fine," he replied. "Can we watch it on the computer?"

"Sure, we can watch it on the computer. You want to?"

"Yeah. I liked watching it on the computer. I liked it when we almost crashed into Mars. That was funny."

So this morning at six, we got up and zoomed out to Mars on the computer, and had our solar system pancakes.

***
Space is a difficult case for reality enthusiasts. I could, if I wanted, create an extremely accurate simulation in Metaplace or Second Life of the excitement of a real space journey to any destination. It would involve building a 8' tall tin can with a door. The avatar goes into the can and we shut the door. The avatar sits in the can for several real-time years. Then the door opens and the avatar enjoys the local terrain which, in space, is going to be generally nothing, that is, space. If he's extremely lucky or good with numbers, the avatar might wind up on an actual planet and view miles and miles of barren dust, or just impenetrable gas.

That's it. That's space. It's no wonder that my son prefers watching space on planetarium software as opposed to the telescope. Software takes the boring reality of space and makes it fun. So does narrative. Space is reality's turnip: You never get it without some kind of spice or sauce.

Virtual reality is a problem for NASA. If anyone can now fly virtually to Mars, and prefers that to looking at the real thing, is the reality of space going to be exciting enough for people to pay billions to put some guys into tin cans. Yet NASA seems intent on bringing virtuality into its programs. Maybe the idea is that so long as people imagine space to be full of aliens and explosions, as opposed to nothing, they will pay, and virtual reality will maintain the illusion. A fair gambit.

It brings to mind Bostrom's interesting argument about space and simulation. If there are infinite civilizations out there, and infinite simulation technology, and at least some desire to simulate, then the probability that we are a simulation approaches 1. But who would simulate the odor of sewage, or stuff like Up With People? Yecch. That, the appendix, and the common cold make me think we're not a simulation. (By the way, the same argument could be used to insist that the probability we have been contacted by extra-terrestrials is 1, and to my knowledge we haven't been). If we're not in a simulation, then there must be limits to simulation technology, or, great civilizations don't like to simulate, or, we're the only ones out here. Take your pick.

But getting back to the main point, space enthusiasts will insist that there's tons of cool stuff in space. I agree. I just don't think that the right way to get cool stuff out of space is by shooting people out there in tin cans. Rather it seems to me more efficient to determine what space is like by looking at it, measuring it, and analyzing it. Then, simulate the features of space that are of interest. Finally, send people into the simulations. Same effect, much cheaper and less dangerous. Also more fun, because you can go to another galaxy in a minute instead of thousands of light-years.

Space is primary fuel for narratives. If this is so, then what we mostly need from space is information. Some specifics always liven up a story, and it takes time to invent specifics. Thus it helps us to know that Mars is red, because we don't have to decide which M&M to use: Use the red one. Similarly, the structure, size, placement, and behavior of things out in space provide marvelous yet plausible settings for all kinds of experiences. The best part is that getting information from space doesn't require our presence there. We don't have to go out there to learn what space is really like. We just have to look.

I'll go ahead and point that telescope to the sky, because the sky holds the raw material with most value in an age of wonder: Background.

Comments

[cube3]

1.

"Then, simulate the features of space that are of interest. Finally, send people into the simulations. Same effect, much cheaper and less dangerous. Also more fun, because you can go to another galaxy in a minute instead of thousands of light-years."

In so many ways this article is ridiculous. 15 years ago in 3d web virtuality, this idea was a cautionary tale and mocked this false value of virtuality.

Its as misguided as like well looking for real world economy lessons in entertainment products.

www.starbasec3.com/faq.html

It reminds me of the type of people who sat at home in europe drawing maps of sea monsters and incorrect land masses across unknown seas where they were sure of lands of savage baby eating monsters living in cities of gold. Cause that was so much more fun.

[Andres Ferraro]

2.

Ted, I'll confess to have only skimmed Bostrom's research. But... "If there are infinite civilizations out there, and infinite simulation technology, and at least some desire to simulate, then the probability that we are a simulation approaches 1." Doesn't sound right. I would say the probability that we are being simulated SOMEWHERE approaches 1, but the probability that we are a simulation here seems independent of the size or complexity of the universe.

I'm unaware of research into finding if we are simulated based on simulation artifacts/bugs. That might be really interesting.

Keep watching the skies... Simulated or not!

[square2]

3.

Yeah, it is about as ridiculous as flame-plugging sci-fi boxer shorts and coffee mugs.

[Peter S Jenkins]

4.

>Ted said - "(By the way, the same argument could be used to insist that the probability we have been contacted by extra-terrestrials is 1, and to my knowledge we haven't been)"

This conclusion does not necessarily follow from the sim argument. If civilizations disappear into their own simulations instead of exploring space, then this explains the Fermi Paradox (i.e. based on the number of stars in our galaxy, it must be teeming with intelligent life yet there is no sign of it). See
John Smart's article. On the appendicitis argument, see my 2006 paper which is mentioned on Bostrom's site.

I think that the huge Mars hoax is perpetuated by purveyors of telescopes and pancake mix. Great that you took the blue earth pill/m&m, though!

[greglas]

5.

Wikipedia is on your side, Ted. It points out that some people think sending human bodies to Mars might be a suboptimal use of human resources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manned_mission_to_Mars

Personally, I'm in the robotics camp. I think machines are probably going to outperform human bodies in most space exploration tasks and they've got the added benefit of being 1/10 the cost and expendable without moral considerations.

I'm not sure space exploration is about having "fun" exactly, though. Exploring an accurate simulation of Mars would probably be less fun than exploring a Mars with LGM abounding, but if the simulation were fully accurate, I would actually learn something about the real Mars. Same goes for exploring the world, vs. entertainment products (movies, games) that use real-world backdrops.

[Ren Reynolds]

6.

Space is an amazing source. But it depends what you mean by ‘look’. Astronomy is all very well but many of the stunning images we see from spaces are nothing that a human could ever see as they are either visible spectrum images that have ‘false colour’ treatment based on things like light intensity or they are maps that have been frequency shifted from the non-visible to the visible.

Or to put it another way – much of what we think of a space even out side SF is nearly always mediated in and some ways virtual - which if course I don't mean in a negative way at all.

[thoreau]

7.

@Andres Ferraro

In the Matrix they make the point that Deja Vu is just such an artifact.

In his paper, "The Physical World as a Virtual Reality," Brian Whitworth alludes to many things that could be looked at as artifacts. For example, the fact that the universe has a maximum speed or the Big Bang.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0801/0801.0337.pdf

[prokofy neva]

8.

meh...fag

[CCBC]

9.

If you had bothered to google, you could have taught your son a lesson about truth and proof.