Dear Gibbs

It is interesting that you bring up the possibility of us being inside a simulation. When I first heard of this possibility, I was shocked that intelligent people were devoting so much of their time to discussing this. If they were doing so, it must be a serious issue. But the more I thought about it, the more specious the argument became. I think there are two problems with the argument. The first is that many logical games can be played to infinity, but these games have no resemblance to reality; and the second is that the conception is completely irrelevant to our lives, in the pragmatic sense.

Regarding logical games, there are a lot of scenarios that can be built up within our heads but which have zero chance of happening in the real world. The oft cited possibility of monkeys typing up the works of Shakespeare is a great example. It is logically possible only if we put the monkeys to work for billions of years, but we also know that the sun would have burned out by then. But we conveniently ignore that well known fact. The possibility of us being inside a simulation is almost exactly the same. Society allocates resources only to relatively productive activities, and creating an exacting simulation of themselves is probably not worth their time, given that it will create comparatively little benefit for them with respect to the cost involved. The probability is about the same as the monkey on typewriter creating a great work of literature. When one thinks in terms of economics, it is really impossible that this simulations inside simulations will come about. In my humble opinion, there is zero chance of that happening in a society that allocates their resources with even a modicum of efficiency.

The second argument is also compelling, as far as our lives are concerned we are trying to live in a way that creates value. This paradigm is not affected in the slightest, if our world is a simulation or hologram or multiverse. We are really focused on creating value. I am not sure, but I think it is this second argument that you are favoring in your essay.

Coming back to the essay, I suspect we differ on what we mean when we use the term 'intelligence'. I take it to mean both intrinsic and extrinsic intelligence; the former deals with brains while the latter deals with Constitutional Governments (possibly also ant colonies). This view makes it possible to suggest some features that might be common to all types of intelligences, even across different domains.

Warm Regards, Willy

    As we move into the last days of voting I would like to encourage everyone to use their right to rate essays. Please do so fairly on merit. Don't worry if you are not an expert. Use your own judgement and your own criteria based on how much you enjoyed them or learnt from each one.

    Remember, the contest is about encouraging an exchange of original ideas and that is hard to achieve in any other way. If you get low ratings be philosophical about it. The best ideas are often not recognised at first. The essays will remain for the future and perhaps people will look back in years to come and remark on how foresighted some essays were, and how unfairly they were rated. Maybe the winners will turn out to be the least revolutionary. Time will be the best judge. Be patient and enjoy the contest now for what it is.

    Jim, thanks for these interesting points.

    The idea that something is real only if you believe it is not quite what I had in mind, but it is another interesting point.

    On the subject of time, yes it is true that most mathematics does not require time. Of course we don't know how fundamental time is and I just hold one view that may or may not be correct. In my picture of reality time is emergent and yes, it emerges at quite a late stage in the ontology. In my view reality is based on logical possibilities described by mathematics. If this view is right then it is necessary and natural that time is not very fundamental at all, but it is very important to the development of life.

    Willy, hopefully most intelligent people who discuss the simulation argument are clear that it cannot be right. There are a few people who think otherwise but that is a different game. Despite this, the simulation argument is very worthy of discussion and analysis. You see the argument begins with some philosophical assumptions, (not all of them explicitly stated) and proceeds to deduce that we must live in a simulation. Since the conclusion is preposterous you can then look at the assumptions and consider which ones may be wrong and what that tells us about reality at a philosophical reality.

    What I have done is taken the simulation argument as a test of my philosophical world view. If my view included all the assumptions that led to the conclusion that we are in a simulation then I would rethink my ideas. The point I make in my essay is that the conclusion is avoided.

    There seem to be some people who don't understand the point of arguments like the simulation argument. They think that people who discuss it must believe that it might be true. They then provide reasons why it is ridiculous to think we are in a simulation and conclude that everyone else is dumb not to see that. In doing so they completely miss the point of this type of philosophical thought experiment which is really about analyzing assumptions.

    Your second argument is another good example of this. It is closely related to the infamous Boltzmann's Brain argument. It question why we have to go through the long process of evolution to exist when in an infinite quantum universe intelligence should eventually appear many times just by random chance. In your terms, why can't we just wait for randomly typing monkeys to produce the goods?

    Again many people don't understand why this is worth thinking about because it is obviously an absurd idea. Actually it is the fact that it is absurd that makes it worth thinking about as a way to test assumptions. I don't claim to have all the answers for this.

    On the question of intelligence, I am talking about what you call intrinsic intelligence, but you are right that this could be opened up to a wider definition.

    Dear Philip,

    upon reading your essay, it becomes immediately clear that it's but one small window into a large tapestry of ideas, starting from the most general logical notions, eventually and hopefully culminating with a universe as we see it---or at least, some set of possible worlds, in which our universe is 'picked out' merely by the fact that we are its inhabitants.

    I find the notion of 'relativized existence' you introduce for the purpose to be very appealing: as our universe is *the* universe to us, so may another universe be *the* universe to its denizens; yet, this doesn't imply that both necessarily co-exist. Indeed, they may both be the same degrees of freedom, scrambled up differently and viewed from a different vantage point. Just as the existence of the vase I dropped yesterday is relative to time (it exists for all t before yesterday, and does not exist for all bigger t), existence in the world you construct is relative to another indexical, indicating worlds instead of points in time, being perhaps a few-thousand bit string picking out a given world from the string landscape.

    Now for a little bit of (hopefully constructive) criticism: although likely owing to the constrained nature of this contest, while a new idea tantalizingly flares up with every second sentence, there isn't enough space to work them out in sufficient detail to really assess their merit. Perhaps your essay might have benefited from a tighter focus on just that cluster of ideas relevant to the emergence of goal-direction. As such, I must admit to remaining a little mystified as to how, exactly, goals, intention, meaning etc. comes about.

    Nevertheless, I do hope your essay does well in the contest!

    Cheers,

    Jochen

      Dear Philip

      I inwardly bless you every time I upload an essay to viXra the anti-arXiv that you established! More power to you.

      I enjoyed your essay. From beginning to end it read logically, smoothly and propelled the reader along in a sort of modern Creation story as Gilgamesh or Genesis were for humanity in the past. Your vision is firmly based in science, but has a sort of poetic resonance as well.

      You refer to String Theory as a source of the right landscape for explaining how the Universe evolved from logical possibilities. Recently Gerard 't Hooft wrote a book showing how Quantum Mechanics can emerge from Cellular Automata. I found that encouraging as my own putative model 'Beautiful Universe' is a sort of CA as well. But first physics needs a vast spring cleaning - one that I outlined in my fqxi essay. I will be honored if you will have a look.

      Best wishes,

      Vladimir

        Dear Philip Gibbs,

        Thank you for your eminently readable and wide ranging essay. I have an interesting question for you when you say, "Can our conscious minds be transferred or copied to computers, or continue to exist independently of contact with our universe?" What about a scenario where a human brain is replicated to the limits of classical physics. So every atom in every neuron is placed in the same relative position as the original, and all electrons inducing voltages are placed in the same configuration, would that result in an identical realization of the same consciousness?

        I've seen this question been raised in other ways, but I think your essay is ideally geared to considering it head-on.

        Thank you for the read, and wanted to let you know I have rated it in the meantime too.

        Regards,

        Robert

          My answer to your question would be yes. If you recreate a human brain at the atomic level you will create a second copy of the same consciousness that would be as much the same person as the original. That is provided you also create enough of the rest of the person for the brain to function. I would leave out the word "classical" because if you are talking about the atomic level then you are using quantum mechanics.

          It is then interesting to ask how much detail you really need to make the same true. Surely getting every atom in the right place is over-kill? Would a simulated version of the brain be equally acceptable? Is it enough to just model the behavior of each neuron accurately? If so what happens if the copy becomes even more crude? Suppose it became possible to create general simulations of a human brain and train them to replicate your memories? Perhaps someone could just undergo a long interview with a computer in which they recall all their memories and discuss their opinions on everything they can think off, supplemented with photos of all the people and places they have known. If the computer could then use that information to create a version of them that would fool anyone, would it be a valid conscious copy? Suppose the copy is constructed from other people's memories of a person after they die instead of their own memories?

          At some point on this scale of possibilities most people are going to say no, that is not a valid copy. I don't think there is a clear point at which that happens. I think that in the future all these things will become possible and it will start with the less perfect copies. Long before they figure out how to revive the people who had their head's frozen at death, it will be possible to create very convincing simulations of people just from an in-depth interview, or even produce a convincing virtual resurrection of someone who died. If you ask people now they are going to say that it will just be an imperfect simulation and not really a valid copy of consciousness. I think when it actually happens this is going to change the way people view consciousness and the self and there will be varying opinions about what it means philosophically. Some people will see a long interview as a much more reliable route to immortality than cryogenics.

          I know people have asked questions like this but I don't think they have not gone far enough to anticipate the way it will actually pan out.

          Hi, Vladamir. I am glad you are in the contest again and I will certainly read your essay. Thank you for your kind comments.

          A common criticism of my essay is that is does not go into enough detail on some point. Of course I acknowledge the validity of that criticism without reservation. Your particular point about goals, intention and meaning is similar to what a few others have said. This is very useful feedback. I should write more about those things but it would require another essay. In fact to do this justice I would have to write a book. Perhaps if I can clear my workload I will even do that sometime.

          I am glad you took the point about relative existence. Again there is a lot more that can be said. I like the points you make about it. In fact the different realities can be thought of as separate or as part of one greater reality. Understanding both these views may be important philosophically. I also tried to give the idea that the multiverse is really just one universe of different histories. We know from quantum mechanics that the "other worlds" are interfering with our reality so that we are not just following a classical path through one possibility. The connections between them are important. Again all this requires expansion.

          Thank you for your comments that have made me think a little more about these things.

          Dear Philip Gibbs,

          Thank you for your time as regards your detailed reply. My motivation for asking the question is that I believe we can learn a lot about consciousness from such detailed considerations. So you are saying we do not even require that brain structure be replicated to the atomic level, just sufficiently well so that voltage gated pulse trains that flow through neurons in a similar brain topology will likely result in a system that we cannot distinguish by any physical experiments or interrogations from the original?

          Thank you for your discussion and I appreciate the new perspective it has given me.

          Regards,

          Robert

          Robert, I am not necessarily saying that this is the case. I am just posing the question. I don't think there is a definitive answer because the question is in the realm of philosophy rather than hard science. I agree that we can learn a lot from these types of question. We will learn even more when some of these things become technically possible. I think different people will react differently according to their philosophical point of view and there is no right or wrong approach. The moral implications will however make it a very serious matter and some legal measures may be required. This will be the time when philosophy of consciousness becomes an applied discipline.

          Your arguments are well taken. Perhaps, I wrote my critique on simulation too hastily. I guess it is probably because I prefer empirical arguments a lot more. I tend to avoid arguments if they are purely logical and the empirical verification is unlikely to come about. But this doesn't look at the full picture since in many cases the empirical validation requires the development of rigorous logical models first. In many cases, those models resemble the simulation argument at first, but then develop into testable theories of reality. Thanks for triggering this thought process.

          Best, Willy

          6 days later

          Dear Philip Gibbs,

          For long I could not locate your response, and I was not sure if you did response. I saw it only today. There should be a link appearing on mutually related pages. Your statements are placed in double quotes below.

          "I think the topic question "How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?" requires a big picture answer that covers a long sequence of arguments from mathematical philosophy up to consciousness." This is precisely I mentioned to Brendan. May be this contest should have been conducted in two phases. In the first, one submits only 12-15,000 char long essay and the selected ones with longer version. But again, people have very limited patience to read alien ideas.

          It seems, I could not manage to get attention of many who could evaluate critically with deeper understanding.

          Oh!, I see, you also left academia to carry on your research agenda without any institutional constraints. As you seem to suggest, you have written books too. Is that how you make your living? I see, you have a namesake who has written many books, nearly a century ago. I left academia a decade and half ago, which seems to be causing my extinction.

          Rajiv

          Dear Philip,

          Congratulations for an ambitious, idea-packed essay! As our conversation in the last essay contest revealed, we share many common views about the fundamental nature of reality, and I found that you once again defended these views well. I find your ideas about the "great path-integral of the master theory" fascinating and intriguing, and I think they can play an important role in formulating a coherent "co-emergentist" ontolgy, where conscious agents and the laws of physics co-emerge from the infinite set of all abstract structures. (I elaborate on this hypothesis in my essay.)

          My favorite part of your essay is the second half of the next-to-last page, where you explain why the hypothesis that we are living in a simulation does not make much sense if "we are observing the emergent properties of information being processed in the quantum ensemble of possible worlds". I tackle similar issues when I talk about "deluded observers" and the limits of our "patch of lawfulness" at the bottom of page 7 in my essay.

          It is great to see you again in this contest, and I wish you at least as much success as last time!

          Marc

            Hi, Philip.

            You say: consciousness can be bootstrapped into existence with a minimum number of random events ...

            But from what is consciousness made, or bootstrapped? What is the essence of the necessary memories, in this frame?

            Ulla.

              Hi Phil,

              Also this year, you realized an important contribution in FQXi Competition. I enjoyed very much in reading your Essay. In particular, I appreciated your focusing on cosmology and your stressing the importance of gravity in shaping the Universe. Finally, I agree with your positive final remark that "We have reached a rare level of intelligence on a rare planet in a rare universe." You deserve the highest score that I am going to give you. Congrats and good luck in the Contest, I hope you will have a chance to read our Essay on gravity-waves.

              Cheers, Ch.

              http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2862

                Thank you Christian. It is the last day of voting so I will be going round as many essays as I can today.

                Ulla, thanks for your question. It is good to see you here.

                My answer to your question is that everything up to consciousness emerges from its logical possibility. Nothing else needs to be added. I know this is a difficult philosophical position for some people but what else can the answer be? If consciousness or anything else arises from something else then that something else has to be explained too. Memories are of the utmost importance for consciousness but they are merely connections in the neural network that is our brain.

                Marc, it is good to see you here too. I commented last time round that I wanted to say something about consciousness so I made sure I kept some space for it this time round. It is very relevant to the topic. I am glad you noticed my argument about the simulations. You can see hoe this relates to your clone ideas which is why I was so excited about your essay last time.

                Your co-emergence idea adds more to this way of thinking. I like it a lot.