The Simulation That Explains Consciousness

[00:00:00]Okay, I have a quick question. So we're in this  universe. Conceivably, there's another universe that is causally disconnected from ours. In fact,  there are many theories of physics which posit such universes. And even in principle, not just  in practice, but in principle, in some of these theories, we can never know about this other  universe, and they can never know about us.

[00:00:20]I would still say that if those theories  are true, that those other universes exist, and they exist to us, and we exist to them. It's  not just we exist to them, and they exist to us, or we only exist to ourselves, or something  like that. It's that they exist, and we exist.

[00:00:40]But according to this, you would say,  no, what is real is observer-dependent, that our universe is real to  us, and that's all we could say?

[00:00:50]It's more than that.

[00:00:52]What I would say is that we have, most  likely, an infinite number of universes, each of which has its own causal closure,  its own bubble of reality, I like to call it.

[00:01:10]And so for us, our bubble of reality is  real. For them, their own bubble of reality is real. But because there's no absolute  frame, we cannot privilege our own frame.

[00:01:31]So we cannot say that only us is the real  bubble. And they cannot say that we are not real because only they are the real bubble. So  everything exists. So we got now like reality, according to this principle of relativity,  if we take it far enough, it will say that reality composes of all those infinite  number of bubbles. All of them are real.

[00:02:00]But it's relative. They are real because  there are at least two observers. There are at least two observers that can measure  each other. And they have this causal closure, and that's why it's a real  bubble. It's a real universe.

[00:02:18]So each bubble exists because of the  measurements from within, let's call it.

[00:02:29]So this is the idea. And one of my  papers, my next papers, will show that one of the results of the principle of  relativity is that the vacuum cannot be empty.

[00:02:48]The vacuum cannot be empty. It must contain  all those different bubbles of reality.

[00:02:57]It cannot be the case that only us exist,  only this bubble. If it was the case, then it was an absolute property. Only us exist.

[00:03:07]So if we take the principle of relativity to  be a basic principle of reality, the vacuum, what we cannot measure, is actually  full of all those different universes, different bubbles, that we  just cannot measure them.

[00:03:32]So this is one of, you know, and  then I show it mathematically, and this is what I will show in  my third paper, more or less.

[00:03:45]Now, I don't remember how did we  reach this question. What did you ask?

[00:03:51]Well, I was saying that what disturbs  me is that much of this framework, from what I recall from reading your paper, is  that a cognitive frame of reference is defined by the dynamics of the system. And then I was  wondering, well, at what scale does a single neuron get a cognitive frame? Does my cortical  column, or one of them, or my left hemisphere?

[00:04:14]And if there's no principled way to draw  that boundary, then how do we know what is conscious and what's not? To the physicist  listening, there's a preferred basis problem.

[00:04:24]In physics, it seems like there's a cognitive  preferred basis problem, or frame problem.

[00:04:30]This is a very good question. So your question  is actually from an absolute point of view.

[00:04:39]You try to understand the absolute answer here, to get an absolute answer —  which scale is the correct scale.

[00:04:52]But what we saw with the emergence scenario,  and with the simulation scenario, actually, is that we need to think from  a relativistic point of view.

[00:05:05]And then, what matters are the causal relations, as you said before. To exist  is to have causal relations.

[00:05:16]So, one neuron exists because it  has causal relations with other neurons in the brain and other stuff in the  brain. A cognitive system also exists. Now, we need to remember what is a cognitive system.

[00:05:33]And one neuron most probably is not a  cognitive system just because of our definition. Our definition is that a cognitive  system is a system that can get inputs, learn, create representations, do  information manipulations, and create outputs out of them. If a neuron  can do that, then one neuron can be a cognitive system already. If one neuron cannot do  it, then it cannot be a cognitive system.

[00:06:05]Let's suppose that it cannot do it. Let's  suppose that we need a bunch of neurons. Now, this group or set of neurons, together, they have causal power. They react to the world,  and the world reacts to them as well.

[00:06:28]So that's why now they are a new  entity. According to relationalism, this is now a new entity. And that's why this  entity I call a cognitive frame of reference.

[00:06:42]No consciousness — notice, no consciousness  yet. It's just about a learning system.

[00:06:51]But already we know, from the  example of water, for example, that there is an emergence here of a new entity,  even though it's not about consciousness yet.

[00:07:04]So we call this entity a  cognitive frame of reference.

[00:07:11]Now we need to continue, because we are  still not — we didn't reach our destination, we didn't reach phenomenal properties at all.

[00:07:20]But we did some steps towards it already.  And let me show you why we did some steps.

[00:07:33]The last scenario that I described was about the  simulation and how we can choose an intrinsic frame of reference inside the simulation. In this  intrinsic frame, let's say that there are humans over there, and I somehow can communicate with  them and I ask them, "What do you see?" Again, not about consciousness. I don't want  people to be confused here. But let's say, what's inside the simulation? What do we  see in this frame of reference? And the measurements are measurements of everything that  we see here in the universe. They have stars, they have gravitational force,  electromagnetic force, and so on.

[00:08:27]But for me, I'm from an external frame  of reference. I see a computer that runs a simulation. I just see a code. I don't see stars inside the computer. I don't see  gravitation inside the computer.

[00:08:44]So it seems, if I don't know about relativity,  if I think everything is absolute, it seems like there is an explanatory gap here.  Because from the inside of the simulation, they have stars and gravitation, but  from the outside, from the external, I don't see them. And I cannot understand how  an entire star with huge mass can be inside my computer. How can I do a reduction  here? It doesn't make any sense.

[00:09:27]So there is an explanatory gap here. Not  because of consciousness. Just because of this weird situation with the properties inside  the simulation and outside the simulation. But it's only a seemingly explanatory gap,  because there is an explanation here.

[00:09:45]There is no gap. The explanation is relativity,  the principle of relativity and relationalism.

[00:09:53]From the outside, I measure  the substrate of my computer, and then I measure those electric currents that  move in the logical gates. And as part of those states that are moving in my computer, they have  some content about the variables of the equations.

[00:10:22]So it's a very complex causal structure  here. Some of the causality is about the electricity. Some of the causality is about  the equations, the variables of the equations.

[00:10:38]But the variables of the equations  just have some causal power, but very small causal power in my frame of reference.  Those states, those variables, don't change, for example, the location of the currents inside  my computer. It does some work, let's call it, because it changes the equations,  the states. But it doesn't do a lot of work. It doesn't change the  electricity movement inside my computer.

[00:11:26]So from my frame of reference, this is what I  measure — just a computer running some algorithms.

[00:11:37]But from the inside, from the frame of reference  of the simulation, the measurements are completely different. Over there, all they can measure  are only those variables. So their variables now have much bigger causal power than what  I can measure from the outside. Over there, the causality is exactly what they do in the  equations, how they change other variables.

[00:12:05]And because of that, those relations — all of a  sudden, over there, there is a manifestation of space, a manifestation of stars, of gravity,  just because they have a much less complex causal structure. All the causality over there  is just because of how the variables interact with each other in the equation. That's  it. No causal structure of the substrate, of the electricity and all that. And that's why,  because it's such a narrow causal structure over there, the properties and entities are  so different than what I measure from the outside. And that's why they actually measure  stars and electricity and gravity and so on.

[00:12:59]So now we have an explanation. There is no  gap anymore. There is an explanation why we measure such different properties  in the intrinsic simulation frame of reference and the extrinsic frame of  reference where I see the computer.

[00:13:22]I think it's a very deep point,  because we actually created here an artificial gap, an explanatory gap, but  according to relativity and relationalism, we can bridge this gap. And if this is  understood, then it means that we did some steps towards understanding how  to bridge the gap with consciousness.

[00:13:56]The Economist covers math, physics,  philosophy, and AI in a manner that shows how different countries perceive  developments and how they impact markets.

[00:14:05]They recently published a piece on China's new  neutrino detector. They cover extending life via mitochondrial transplants, creating  an entirely new field of medicine.

[00:14:14]But it's also not just science. They  analyze culture. They analyze finance, economics, business, international  affairs across every region.

[00:14:22]I'm particularly liking their new insider  feature. It was just launched this month.

[00:14:26]It gives you — it gives me — a front-row access  to The Economist's internal editorial debates, where senior editors argue through the news with  world leaders and policymakers in twice-weekly long-format shows. Basically, an  extremely high-quality podcast.

[00:14:42]Something else you should know about  is that if you go to their app, they not only have daily articles,  but they also have long-form podcasts with their editors and writers.  This is also available online.

[00:14:54]Whether it's scientific innovation or  shifting global politics, The Economist provides comprehensive coverage beyond headlines.

[00:15:01]As a TOE listener, you get a  special discount. Head over to economist.com/toe to subscribe. That's  economist.com/toe for your discount.