Exploring the Virtual Reality Conjecture by Brian Whitworth

Hi Karl,

Let me try.

In physicalism (2a) the world is as it seems - solid, real and self-existent - and consciousness "emerges" from physicality at the information complexity of the human brain, so machines will soon become conscious and replace us. Yet today's computers are socially dumb [1], as their architecture doesn't support the self-awareness to conceive an "I" [2]. And piling up video boards in a supercomputer is like piling up rocks, you get a bigger heap but it is still a rock (machine). So physicalism is dominant but has its problems.

Enter solipsism (2b), where an observer "dreams" an unreal physical world. It argues that everything is mediated by my mind so is created by it, e.g. Harunyahya's "The secret beyond matter" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X04jN_xcLis If so, as you say, it will look real, as a dream does, at the time, but with no real external world out there, what makes it consistent? If no-one watches a forest, no tree can fall in it, but what if later one looks to find a tree fell - was a consistent past history also made up? Did we also fabricate the dinosaurs, or the billions of years of universe history? So that's a problem.

In extreme solipsism everything is created by my mind, so "you" don't exist, i.e. the theory doesn't generalize well! A weaker version is that consciousness creates the world by triggering wave function collapse, as in Schrödinger's cat and your star example. Yet if we are "observation central", how did the universe manage before we came along to collapse its spreading quantum waves by observing them? So that's another problem.

In contrast, in 2d, we are nothing special, as observer and observed are equal. The physical world arises from quantum interactions that are symmetric, i.e. if you "observe" a photon, it also "observes" you. If quantum collapse follows any quantum interaction, quantum uncertainty doesn't cumulate. It stops if the detector "sees" the photon, whether Schrödinger knows it or not. While in 2b, a conscious observer creates quantum collapse, in 2d the interaction of any "observers" does it. So that is one difference.

In a virtual reality, observations create the physical world, as quantum theory says, as if one looks left a left view is created and if one looks right another is shown. That observing a virtual reality creates (a view of) it cracks the quantum measurement problem. But in 2d, unlike 2b, there is still a real world "out there" (it just isn't the world we see), i.e. it generalizes ok. That is another difference.

Virtualism (2d) is the logical reverse of physicalism (2a). As physicalism postulates a physical substrate from whose interactions the conscious observer emerges, so virtualism postulates an observer substrate from whose interactions the physical world emerges. The "observer" in 2d is not us personally as human beings, but all existence "knowing" itself directly. So no tree falls in a forest unseen as the ground it hits "sees" it. There are no "gaps" here and no view history to recapitulate, as quantum reality has been simulating itself to itself from the beginning, i.e. the fundamental observer of the universe is not physical at all, let alone technical or biological, but the essence of consciousness in all things.

To sum up:

a. Physicalism was a good option before modern physics, but struggles to explain our consciousness.

b. Solipsism can explain consciousness but struggles with realism, and doesn't generalize well

c. Dualism is an illogical compromise to let us get on with business, as was the Copenhagen interpretation, i.e. a necessary "work-around".

d. Virtualism is an unexplored logical possibility that science can evaluate, that has implications for the data we get from world we observe.

Now, Conway shows logically that either the world, including us, is entirely mechanical, or if any part of it, like us, can be conscious (with free choice) then it must all be so [3]. In this view 2b and 2c attempt to "have ones cake and eat it too", leaving 2a and 2d as the only contenders.

But can physicalism account for quantum theory? Everett's many worlds theory, that every quantum choice spawns an alternate universe, is the "way-out" case for 2a. It invents a multiverse machine to contain the quantum ghost's randomness, postulating a "clockwork multiverse", where no choice is ever really made. Yet why should an immense multi-verse, like a doting parent with a video-camera, copy everything our universe might do?

The VR conjecture is the equally way-out case for 2d, that the quantum ghost is real and the physical world is its virtual shadow.

Whether the world we see is an objective reality, that exists in and of itself, or a virtual reality, that is created by processing, is a hypothesis about it that science should be able to evaluate by facts plus logic.

So now physics has two crazy, but consistent, explanations of the strange findings of modern physics to choose from. Lucky us.

kind regards. Brian Whitworth

References

[1] B. Whitworth and T. Liu, "Politeness as a Social Computing Requirement," in Handbook of Conversation Design for Instructional Applications, R. Luppicini, Ed. Hershey PA: IGI, 2008, pp. 419-436.

[2] B. Whitworth, "A Comparison of Human and Computer Information Processing," in Encyclopedia of Multimedia Technology and Networking, M. Pagani, Ed. Hershey PA: Information Science Reference, 2009, pp. 230-239, http://brianwhitworth.com/braincomputer.pdf

[3] J. Conway and S. Koch, "The free will theorem," Found. Phys., vol. 36, no. 10, pp. arXiv:quant-ph/0604079v1, 2006.

Dear Edwin,

You are right, the issue of localism is central.

I don't think Bell's logic is flawed. Take the simplest case. A Caesium atom sends off two photons in opposite directions with unknown spin. Define "en route" as being from that event until either photon is involved in any physical event. So traveling through space, air or glass is "en route", but any physical interaction, like measuring its spin, is not en route. So if the apparatus has ANY physical effect, the photon is no longer en route. However it could, as you say, affect the photon's "hidden properties" which then become evident later when spin is measured. This is also what Einstein thought, so you are in good company here.

To evaluate this, note that photon spin is a binary outcome, with only two values, "up" or "down", for clockwise or anti-clockwise direction, and always by the same amount, which is Planck's reduced constant. That the spin outcome is probabilistic does not mean it is "changing", except if by that you mean entirely and totally reversing spin direction as it moves. So a photon is not like some cork on a quantum sea that continuously changes position as it bobs up and down. It is like a trap that irreversibly snaps shut the moment anything physically touches it, and does so clockwise or anti-clockwise randomly, i.e. not determined by prior physical events.

In entanglement, two such traps set off in opposite directions, and we find that if one snaps shut one way, the always goes the other way. So if the "apparatus" causes hidden "changes", why does it always change one up and the other down? Also the entangled photons can travel light years in empty space before the measurement, why does the "apparatus" of empty space push one up and the other down, as space is isotropic? It doesn't make sense.

In addition, the quantum collapse of the two-slit experiment implies the same "non-locality" when only one photon hits a screen with no apparatus except space, as follows:

"To Einstein, quantum collapse was absurd, as it implied faster than light travel. In his thought experiment a photon travels through a slit to hit a screen. Before it hits, the wave function says it could exist at points say A or B on the screen with some probability. After it hits, it is suddenly entirely at point A say, and not at point B at all. Now as the screen moves further away, the wave projection increases until eventually the A to B distance could be light years. Yet in quantum theory, the collapse is still immediate. The moment point A "knows" it is the particle, then B "knows" it is not, even if they are in different galaxies. The collapse decision is applied faster than the speed of light, which by special relativity is impossible for any known form of physical transmission." (from my Ch3, p16)

In contrast, the VR conjecture requires this non-locality, as a program acting upon a screen is always non-local to that screen. As you look at the screen to read this posting the program creating takes the same time to change any pixel - it has no screen limits. This of course is assuming that the physical world is an image on a screen, which is just a conjecture.

Your idea of a C field is remarkably similar to the idea of a grid. The main difference is that fields are presumed continuous while a grid is presumed discrete. You say that "superposition of states inherently does away with realism in favor of mysticism, claiming that quantum objects are 'ghostly' until measured".

I argue that it only does away with physical realism, but not realism per se. When you say we still do not know what a quantum field is I add "physically". We know what it is mathematically. If one defines postulating anything "beyond the physical" as "mystical", then both quantum theory and your C field are so already. The VR conjecture is just saying the same thing, but more bluntly, and without a "cover" of mathematics.

To me, logically, physics left the enclave of positivism long ago, when it embraced Faraday's idea of a field, which Feynman defines as follows:

"A real field is a mathematical function we use for avoiding the idea of action at a distance. " (Feynman, Leighton, & Sands, 1977) Vol. II, p15-7

We don't "see" fields, just their effects, and what is action at a distance but non-locality? I like fields, but lets be honest - they are not positivist "things" perceived directly.

So while "The physical fact is that a magnetic field can only measure along one axis at once", the quantum fact is that it can go both ways at once. This is why quantum computing operates quite differently from our physical computing.

This model is the testable theory that the physical world is virtual, i.e. has the properties of a processing output. What processing creates it can be derived by reverse engineering, if it is consistent. Other than that, how to describe it is open. So your C field could be a fine way to do that, and perhaps a better one, as it allows mathematics.

regards

Brian

Dear Tom,

There is no reason why it couldn't be, in theory. Indeed, as I say, it is THE case for physicalism, given the strange findings of quantum mechanics. Many respected physicists consider it the best option.

But science works by comparing alternatives and deciding the most likely, not by absolutely deciding "truth". So that it is not impossible is not the question, but rather whether it is likely. Here is a case from (Whitworth, 2010), p31:

"While initially ignored, physicists today prefer it (many worlds theory) three to one over the Copenhagen view (Tegmark & Wheeler, 2001) p6, despite its staggering overheads. Billions of galaxies of photons, electrons and quarks each making billions of choices a second for billions of years means the:

". . . universe of universes would be piling up at rates that transcend all concepts of infinitude." (Walker, 2000) p107.

Many worlds theory offends Occam's razor by assuming more than it explains. Deutsch's attempt to rescue it by letting a finite number of universes "repartition" after each choice just recovers the original problem, as what decides which universes are dropped?"

Is MWT just a theory designed to support a pre-existent bias that the world is an objective reality? Does it add any value, apart from that?

In contrast, in the VR conjecture, what is "copied" are quantum entities, like photons, or more correctly, their processing is distributed non-locally. This is a lot simpler than copying the entire universe every time a quantum event occurs!

regards,

Brian

Tegmark, M., & Wheeler, J. A. (2001). 100 Years of the Quantum. Scientific American, (Feb), p68-75.

Walker, E. H. (2000). The Physics of Consciousness. New York: Perseus Publishing.

Whitworth, B. (2010). The Light of Existence. Available at http://brianwhitworth.com/BW-VRT3.pdf

Hi Peter,

Thanks for the link. I couldnt get it to work but accept the point as true. You are quite right - in gravitational lensing, photons from the same cosmic event can arrive on earth at very different times because they take different paths. But that doesn't "collapse" the idea that the grid keeps photons in lock-step order for a given path. Obviously, different length paths will take different times, as there are more transfers. Even different paths of the same length will take different times if the grid is loaded differently on each, e.g. if one path goes by a massive galaxy that stream of photons will be slowed down. This is of course also well explained by general relativity, essentially the same way, though it talks of space "curving" while in this model it is a limited amount of processing being shared between movement and other things.

kind regards

Brian

Hi Peter,

No problem. I think it is ok to speculate, as physics does it all the time, as long as the speculation is worked out in detail, generates some new knowledge value, and is logically consistent. We should all be free to speculate, e.g. Einstein was being consistent in saying that quantum theory implies no empty space, as if an electron's quantum wave can spread over a galaxy, how is its space "empty"?

In the VR model, empty space is entirely "full" of processing, whether it has a net output or not. A processing medium is a relative, non-physical "ether", whose output is physicality. It is as you say a discrete field - though it is just one, as you cannot logically have many grids. Its basic operation is electro-magnetism, and in an unfinished paper, gravity is the gradient of the same "field" that supports movement, i.e. SR and GR have the same origin.

kind regards

Brian

Hi Tom,

I am trying to work through this step by step, so will cover the points you raise in more detail in a later chapter. This is just my first thoughts, which may change.

The term emulation implies copying an original, as in emulating Windows on a Mac. As you say, simulating can mean the same, as in traffic model simulations. I use simulating in the sense of "The Sims" or Civilization, where a "world in itself" is created with its own space and time, that need not be a "realistic" copy of its containing world. Yet being contained, it must present on less dimensions than the parent, as we view 2D screen surfaces in our 3D space. This model just extends that, making our 3D space a "surface" of a 4D grid. If so, as you say, it may repeat, but science can only address whether this world is virtual or not, as that is all we know.

That science can theorize beyond the physical world but must validate from within it may be what Popper means by meta-physical realism. I have to check that. If so, the term refers to a method of modern science, while the term physicalism is a conclusion it might reach. If they are two different contexts, there is no contradiction.

Now extra dimensions in an objectively real world must somehow be within it, so string theory makes them "curled up", too tiny to see. Why a world should have such unseen and unusable dimensions is unclear. In contrast, a virtual world needs an extra dimension, making us the 3D version of Abbot's 2D Flatlanders, with an unseen dimension "sequestered" from us. Yet from a circle expanding and contracting in his world, Mr A. Square could conceive an unseeable "sphere", just as our complex number theory postulates an "imaginary" dimension beyond "real" space.

In practice, this doesn't make the physical world unreal or superfluous, which is nihilism. Indeed, it accepts that the physical world is the only reality we have, but just adds the postulate that it is real only within itself, i.e. locally real. That it has no inherent reality is implied by that it is virtual, or generated by processing. This is not a religious or philosophical view, though others may see it so, but just a logical implication of the VR model.

Also necessarily implied is that just as our simulations only exist if the programs creating them run, so the physical universe only exists if quantum programs creating it run. If the grid's processing were to at any time to stop, the physical world would, according to this model, instantly disappear as if it had never been. Clearly this is a different world view from the traditional one of a self-sufficient physical universe that created itself.

regards,

Brian Whitworth

Hi Narsep,

Sorry for the delay but was preparing for a US trip next week, to NJ. You raise some interesting points! Working from your statements:

"An entity (SuE) is in a collapsed quantum state (pure real state) just for a moment the "time moment" that it is on time line (X=Y=Z); the time of perception (measurement). The same is true for the "time moment" when it is in its pure virtual state ΦX=ΦY=ΦZ . Hence, any entity is in its clear real or virtual state just for a "time moment" when it (the entity) is on its time line (extension of R or Φ, see Fig. 5 and 6 for 2D and Fig. 8 for 3D). At all other (infinity) time the entity is in a sum of stochastic states with continuously varying probabilities between the previous and the following collapsed quantum states. So reality is neither real neither virtual."

That is a reasonable conclusion by the evidence. The VR conjecture just raises another possibility - that the uncollapsed quantum waves are the ongoing reality, and "physical reality" arises from fleeting information transfers between them as they "collide" and restart. If a "clear real ... state" only ever exists for an instant, by quantum theory, it acts like an event not an ongoing "state". So it could be an information transfer event. In VR theory, the physical world is entirely virtual, built only from events, with no "substance" in itself. This is not proposed to be "the answer", but an option current science needs to consider. It is not good enough to reject it based on a nineteenth doctrine (positivism) that was originally designed to combat the superstitions of the middle ages. Two centuries later, we should no longer fear a return to pre-science fallacies from the postulate that the physical world is not all that exists (though it is all we can know directly).

"Reality is that which causes ONLY IF interaction is independent from what is caused. If this is not the case (interaction depends on the result through holographic virtual interconnection) then reality is that which causes PLUS that which is caused."

Again, this is a possible interpretation, but not the only one. It is a dualist position, so has its problems, e.g. if quantum waves cause physical reality which then causes quantum waves, which came first, to start the interaction cycle off? Or if both exist in their own way, why is the quantum world so different? In particular, how can it do what cannot be done physically? Why have one set of rules for one world, the physical, but an entirely different set of rules for another, the quantum? Hence the VR conjecture suggests that non-dualism is simpler, and so by Occam's razor, preferred. It moves the focus of "reality" from the physical world to the quantum realm. It then must explain how a quantum world could create a physical one, which it does by suggesting that quantum processing creates a virtual physical world.

"It is not like Plato's cave. It is like we see with one eye to our front and the other eye to our back. The front eye sees the real reality and the back one sees the virtual reality. We can not perceive both realities at once although they are both existing in the present universe. We have the appropriate glass(es) for the front eye and we are search for the glass(es) for the back one."

This extension of the analogy raises interesting questions. Science tells us that we can only register the physical world by our senses, or as you say, the "first eye". Technical instruments like the telescope are then "glasses" to help the "eye" of the senses. If there is also a "back eye", that sees another world, how does that "eye" arise apart from the physical senses? What is it registering if not the physical world? What glasses could one apply to a non-physical eye making non-physical observations? I ask these questions in all seriousness.

Finally, thanks again for raising your thoughtful points.

kind regards

Brian Whitworth