on some things that may be of concern to the modern mystic

on some things that may be of concern

to themodern mystic

dr. J.F. (jim) Nystrom

PHIL 350 Guest Lecture

IRC 115

21 February 2013

All philosophy is a result of an attempt toexplain the nature of the universe, and

man’s relation to it.

- Pythagoras

Contents of the talk

� Introduction and motivation

� computational cosmography overview

� “simulation argument” mechanisms

� on some theoretical problems with brain emulation

� Questions and further study (if time permits?)

Overall Idea∗

I will give some background on the concerns that led me into

the study of consciousness and the nature of mind –

specifically, how can Mind exist in an objective physical world

that operates in pure-principle only.

As will become clear, I advocate a dualist stance (in the

philosophy of Mind), and the associated problems this can

cause in some scientific areas will (hopefully?) become

apparent.

∗My interest here is from the viewpoint of a computational philosopher(and/or mystic), whose main interest is in how Universe in-total computes.

ontological musings on how nature computes


ICCS 2010

For the session on methods in physics

31 May 2010

Procedia Computer Science 00 (2010) 1–10

Procedia ComputerScience

International Conference on Computational Science, ICCS 2010

Ontological musings on how nature computes

J.F. Nystrom1,∗

Mathematics Department, Ferris State UniversityBig Rapids, MI USA

Abstract

Modern physical theory and modern computational techniques are used to provide conjecture on how nature com-putes. I utilize time-domain simulation of physical phenomena and build analogies between elements of computationand the “things” of Universe computation, resulting, for example, in the identification of the quantum vacuum as thepower source for Universe computation. While reviewing how Universe can be viewed as a computation, we find theneed for Negative Universe (which is a part of the quantum vacuum mechanism). This idea is compared with Pen-rose’s current model which utilizes a separate Platonic world outside of physical Universe. Lastly, in the Discussion,I present an updated version of computational cosmography as a model for Universe as computation.

Keywords: Universe as computation, quantum vacuum, computational cosmography

1. Introduction

Ontology: The metaphysical study of the nature of being and existence.

Herein I use modern time-domain computer simulation2 (of physical phenomena) to motivate and inform a discussionon how nature computes. I will try to answer questions such as: (1) During a simulation (of some time-dependentbehavior of physical phenomena) what part of the computation/computer most resembles actual matter and radiation;(2) what part of the computation/computer most resembles the manifestation of physical laws; (3) what can be learnedabout how nature computes by investigating how modern time-domain simulations are accomplished; and ultimately(4) if Universe can be viewed as a type of computation, what is the best way to think properly about this mostubiquitous of all computations. Throughout the paper I concentrate on how we organize the computing equipmentduring a time-domain simulation. I identify the parts of our computer systems that have an analogous element in thephysical world; i.e., parts that play a similar role in the computation that is Universe.

In Sect. 2 I give an overview of modern time-domain simulation techniques with an eye towards comparing ourcomputation techniques to what goes on in the physical world. Throughout this section I will draw analogies between

∗

Email address: [email protected] (J.F. Nystrom)1Corresponding author2A time-domain simulation will advance a solution in time. For example, a computational electromagnetics solver can continuously update

field variables (i.e., the electric and magnetic field variables, which can sum totally be called the solution) in time to predict the propagation of thefields under specific conditions.

ontology

The metaphysical study of the natureof being and existence.

nystroj

Placed Image

cosmography defined†

Cosmography : (1) a general description of the world or of the

universe. (2) the science that deals with the constitution of the

whole order of nature.

†Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary.

nystroj

Placed Image

computational cosmography defined

The name computational cosmography ‡ is used to describe a

computational system wherein physical system behaviors (and

properties) emerge as by-products of computations based on -

for lack of a better description - the interaction of virtual

deformable polyhedra which conform to the geometry

mechanisms as described in R.B. Fuller’s Synergetics.

‡J.F. Nystrom, “Tensional computation: Further musings on the computa-tional cosmography,” Applied Mathematics and Computation 120, 211-225(2001).

��

��

�� !"

��

��

��

��

��

�� !� " ��#�� !��

�� $��

�� %&&' (�� )�� *�� "��

��

#��$ +�� , )�� , +��

� ��

�� *� �� !�� #�� -�� %�� .++/ �� .�� /�� (�� 0�� +��

��1�� 1�"�� 2� �� +�� '%& .%&&'/ %''3%%4

� 5�� )�� 6�� +�� )�� 2�!�� 2�� '777�

�� $ �� 8�� .�� /�

&&79�:&&:1&'1; � �� %&&' (�� )�� *�� "��

5**� )&&79 �:&&: .77 /&&%<=�7

VE and the isotropic vector matrix grid

Vector equilibrium (VE) cell IVM grid/FCC grid.

is a twelve-around-one arrangement

which consists of four hexagonal planes;

each plane being a six-around-one arrangement.

nystroj

Placed Image

The four hexagonal planes of the VE

e1

e2

e3

e4

e5

e6

(Here the a-plane is shown in magenta, the b-plane is shown in red, the

c-plane is shown in green, and the d-plane is colored aqua.)

a-plane: [+1] [-2] [+6] [-1] [+2] [-6],b-plane: [+1] [+4] [+5] [-1] [-4] [-5],c-plane: [-2] [+4] [+3] [+2] [-4] [-3],d-plane: [-5] [-3] [+6] [+5] [+3] [-6].

Visualizing the vector curl

e3

The a and b planes

interact and beget the

e3 component of a curl.

e5

The a and c planes

interact and beget the

e5 component of a curl.

nystroj

Placed Image

Electric field as traveling tetrahedron§¶

(Example of energy as form)

§J.F. Nystrom, ”On the Omni-directional Emergence of Form in Computa-tion,” Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 3305, 632-641 (2004).

¶J.F. Nystrom, “In Search of a Geometrical Basis for the Ubiquitous Electro-magnetic Energy,” PIERS 2002 Proceedings, Boston, MA, July 2002.

nystroj

Placed Image

The A-module, B-module, and Mite (oh my!)‖

Think of these as the atoms or big bits of these computations

‖The picture on the left is from Richard Hawkins’ Digital Archive. Thepicture on the right is part of Color Plate 17 in R.B. Fuller, Synergetics:Explorations in the Geometry of Thinking, Macmillan, 1975.

computational cosmographical interplayof space and matter†

Both the background lattice system and the big bits (or polyhedraaggregates) of a CC computation have restrictions on formresulting from identical embryonic geometrical considerations. It isfrom the omni-directional lattice system that the form for allentities of a CC computation emerge. The interplay between thebig bits and the lattice system creates the need for an active latticebackground system, . . .

In this way, we find the lattice tells polyhedra aggregateshow to transform, while the polyhedra aggregates in turntell the lattice how to tense.

†J.F. Nystrom, ”On the Omni-directional Emergence of Form in Computa-tion,” Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 3305, 632-641 (2004).

Mechanism for the Simulation Argument


Nexus of Science and Spirit

Shepherdstown, WV USA

7 December 2006

Teleological mechanism for the simulation argument I begin the talk by providing an overview of Bostrom’s now seminal 2003 paper “Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?”. Herein I summarize Bostrom's simulation argument (where one possibility is that we are living in a simulation – specifically as part of an ancestor simulation created by a posthuman society). I take issue with Bostrom's functionalist position on Mind and present a modified simulation disjunction (MSD) wherein I utilize a dualism close in concept to a funda-mentalism of the Penrose-Hameroff variety. Here I eschew Bostrom's ancestor simulations as a type of functionalist masquerade. However, I do maintain the possibility that we are living in a (complete Universe) simulation, created by posthuman simulators (PHS). I note that if we are in a simulation without a functionalist model of Mind, we need structures in the simulation that can support and/or capture Mind activities (e.g., a brain). Here Mind takes on a Gnostic characteristic, in that Mind itself would need to fall down (if you will) from some non-spatio-temporal habitation (a Richard Rorty term) as in the supposed doings of a Gnostic Demiurge. This model of Mind is similar to Plato's Divine Mind or Huxley's Mind-at-Large, and similar to Penrose's use of an underlying Platonic reality (a so-called basic level of Universe). In the third (and last) part of the talk I take the assumption that we are living in a complete Universe simulation. I posit a query concerning how our supposed PHS could implement algorithmic control of a Universe. I need provide background asides before I answer this query. The first aside is (I) a discussion of Universe as a computation in terms energy interactions which take fundamental activity of Universe to be operating near Planck lengths and Planck time. I introduce the terms Negative Universe (a R. Buckminster Fuller term) and reality flux. Here Negative Universe is akin to Penrose's Platonic and Mental worlds, and reality flux describes the ensembles of virtual photons and anti-particles, some of which seemingly pass in and out of existence. Another aside (II) compares casual and teleological effects. I use physically-based arguments, and suggest that the typically arbitrary adoption of the causal viewpoint for most process in Universe is in fact an observation selection effect resulting from an immersion in a forward progression of time. I also (III) review the classic dualism (of mind and matter) and compare this to Penrose-Hameroff funda-mentalism. As a result of this aside, I take Mind as something that resides partially in Negative Universe. The last aside (IV) presents Gravity as an instantaneous most economical relationship of all energy events (as R. Buckminster Fuller did), and this then places the Gravity (calculation/update) in Negative Universe. I can now answer the query and propose mechanisms with which PHS could computationally steer a Universe (such as ours). Since Gravity and Mind have both been surmised to contain a non-spatio-temporal essence (in Negative Universe), I suggest that PHS could in fact use both Gravity and Mind as teleological control mechanisms for a Universe simulation.

Contents

� Introduction

� Are You Living In a Computer Simulation?

� The modified simulation disjunction

� Mechanism for the Simulation Argument

� Questions

Are You Living In a Computer Simulation?

While it is quite popular to nowadays view Universe as a

computation; Nick Bostrom has taken this idea a bit further in

his now seminal 2003 paper∗.

The core of Bostrom’s argument is to build a tripartite

disjunction (hereafter referred to as the Simulation Disjunction,

or SD), and then show that only one of the disjuncts can be

true. Now the first disjunct:

(1) “the fraction of human-level civilizations that reach

a ‘posthuman’ stage is very close to zero. . . ”

∗Nick Bostrom, Philosophical Quarterly 53, 243-255 (2003).

If (1) is false, that means that some societies actually due

reach posthuman status (meaning in essence that these

societies have evolved to enjoy a more cerebral existence,

presumably free of the concerns of war and disease, and armed

with unimaginable levels of computing resources).

Now consider what a posthuman society may do with some of

their computing resources. Bostrom supposes that posthumans

should be capable of simulating mental activity, or Mind.

But would they?

(2) “the fraction of posthuman civilizations that are

interested in running ancestor-simulations is very close

to zero. . . “

Bostrom’s SD focuses on ancestor simulations, wherein

posthumans would run simulations of their ancestors mental

histories as they may have evolved over time. Here Bostrom

takes an assumption of substrate-independence in a very

functionalist manner and therefore supposes a computational

theory of mind. For Bostrom, Mind here is solely a result of

brain(type) activity.

Consider now a situation where the first two disjuncts are false.

For this situation, Bostrom calculates the probability that any

given society (such as ours) is part of an original universe, and

deduces that the probability is very slight. Therefore

(3) “the fraction of all people with our kind of

experiences who are living in a simulation is very close

to one.”

In his conclusion, Bostrom asserts that “Unless we are now

living in a simulation, our descendants will almost certainly

never run an ancestor-simulation.”

Further, Bostrom suggests that “In the dark forest of our

current ignorance, it seems sensible to apportion one’s

credence roughly equally between (1), (2), and (3).”

In the next section of this talk I modify Bostrom’s SD a bit as I

take issue will some of the finer detail found in his presentation.

We will maintain however the overall possibility that we may be

living in a computer simulation!

The modified simulation disjunction (MSD)

1. The fraction of civilizations that reach posthuman

status is near zero.

This is essentially Bostrom’s first disjunct. Recall from the

short review of his paper, there are many possible reasons why

this disjunct may be true.

If this disjunct is false, then we take the assumption that a

posthuman society will have enormous amounts of computing

power available.

What then is a posthuman to compute?

∗ The ancestor simulations of Bostrom’s SD are a type of

functionalist masquerade.

∗ If we in fact eschew computationalism; I suggest we would

need to adopt a dualism, or possibly the quantum ideas (due to

Penrose and Hameroff) of funda-mentalism† for the model of

Mind (and mental forms).

†Stuart R. Hameroff, ”Funda-Mentality: Is The Conscious Mind Subtly LinkedTo A Basic Level Of The Universe?” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2 119-127(1998).

∗ Assume that computationalism is false; meaning that it is

unlikely that we could build structures that could create Mind.

I still suggest that computational structures (or substratums)

could be built which could support (or capture) Mind.

∗ Thus, for simulations which would support conscious entities

in a Universe devoid of computationalism, Mind would need to

fall down (if you will) from a non-spatio-temporal habitation‡

(e.g., from Plato’s Divine Mind or Huxley’s Mind-at-Large).

‡To borrow a term from Richard Rorty (in Richard Rorty, Philosophy and the

Mirror of Nature, Princeton University Press (1979)).

∗ But would these would-be posthuman simulators (PHS) build

such simulations?

This last question leads directly to the next disjunct:

2. The fraction of posthuman societies that choose to

run Universe simulations wherein Mind can be

effectively envated is near zero.

Which in turn begets a moral quandary:

Would PHS act as a sort of Gnostic Demiurge§ and allow

entrapment/envatment of Mind in their Universe simulations?

§Han Jonas, The Gnostic Religion, Beacon Press, Boston (1963).

∗ Consider now a situation where the first two disjuncts of the

MSD are false. Therefore we obtain what is essentially

Bostrom’s final disjunct:

3. The fraction of human-like entities with Mind that

are actually simulated is near 1.

∗ To reiterate: It is unlikely that our society, say 2000 years

hence, would be the first society capable of building simulations

wherein Mind could exist, and accordingly - if 2. is false - we

are unlikely to be part of an original universe.

Therefore, we must then be living in a Universe simulation.

Mechanism for the Simulation Argument

� Universe as a computation

� Algorithmic control question

� Observation selection effects

� Causal and teleological

� Dualism and funda-mentality

� On the nature of Gravity

� Gravity and Mind as Teleological Prime Movers

nystroj

Text Box

(or , an objective reality?)

An objective reality?

When contemplating the possibility of an objective reality, Isubmit it may be best if the physical Universe is imagined as aseething dance of energy events whose true dynamics should becouched in terms of Planck lengths, Planck time†, andWheeler’s quantum foam‡, and whose quantum descriptionwould include so-called virtual particles (and anti-matter)which seemingly pass in and out of physical existence and thatmay even deploy effects both forward and backward in time.†The Planck scale is the proposed bottom-level for physical events. Here,e.g., lP ' 1.16× 10−35 m, and tP ' 5.4× 10−44 s.‡In Wheelers words: “I found myself forced to invent the idea of quantumfoam, made up nor merely of particles popping into and out of existencewithout limit, but of space-time itself churned into a lather of distortedgeometry.”

The quantum vacuum§ is a term used the describe certain

peculiar aspects in modern physical theory. It is the case that

negative energy electrons (i.e., positrons) and other

antiparticles are required in the quantum theory for Lorentz

invariance (i.e., special relativity considerations) and causality¶.

The antiparticles and the virtual photons that surround physical

electrons are assumed to literally jump in and out of existence,

which in turn creates a type of enormous reality flux that is in

fact required in order for process in Universe to exist.

§P.W. Milonni, The Quantum Vacuum: An Introduction to Quantum Elec-trodynamics, Academic Press (1993).¶P.W. Milonni, ibid.

I use the term Negative universe‖ to describe that aspect∗∗ ofthe quantum vacuum where antiparticles flux to-and-fro whenthey (i.e., the antiparticles) are not in the physical universe.

I further submit that reality flux here acts like a power sourcefor the functioning of physical Universe.

reality flux provides the mechanisms for things analogous tocurrent and voltage difference – which are the electricalproperties that are needed for modern electronics. Here thenNegative universe acts as both a “source” and “ground” forprocess in physical Universe.‖A term borrowed from R.B. Fuller. R.B. Fuller, Synergetics: Explorations inthe Geometry of Thinking, Macmillan Publishing, New York (1975). Onlineat: http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/synergetics.html

∗∗For lack of a better term here. Calling Negative universe a ‘place’ wouldimply a spatial essence.

Algorithmic control question

I now take 3. as the valid disjunct of the MSD.

Given that Universe seems to be a seething emergent dance ofenergy events whose quantum interactions include virtualparticles (and antimatter) which partly exist in some kind ofNegative universe;

I query:

How could our supposed PHS implement

algorithmic control of a Universe?

To try to obtain some plausible answer to this query, I will firstask you to consider some philosophical asides...

Observation Selection Effects‡‡

∗ A selection effect can be related to limitations associated

with measuring instruments or related to how we choose from

available data. For example, we routinely determine that some

available data is relevant while ignoring other sources of data.

∗ An observation selection effect is introduced by the fact that

an actual observer is needed to make the measurement. We

can only observe things when an observer is available to make a

measurement.

‡‡Nick Bostrom, Anthropic Bias: Observation Selection Effects in Science and

Philosophy, Routledge, New York (2002).

Causal versus Teleological

It is common in the physical sciences to posit that all causes

precede - in time - any associated effects. However, it turns

out that the general idea of causation is philosophically

problematic. (See, for example † and ‡.)

†David Robb, John Heil, “Mental Causation,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy (Spring 2005 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). Online at:http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2005/entries/mental-causation/

‡Jan Faye, “Backward Causation,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

(Fall 2005 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). Online at:http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2005/entries/causation-backwards/

For our present purposes, I suggest we take

∗ Causal processes to be those involving ‘cause and effect’ that

progresses forward in time; and

∗ Teleological processes to be those whose end results

determine the intermediate actions leading to said results (thus

in a way involving ‘cause and effect’ that progresses backward

in time).

The idea of backward causation is very related to teleological

process. Since much of physical theory is symmetric with

respect to the time variable, the issue of causal process versus

teleological process does arise in modern physical theory.

In most cases the causal viewpoint is arbitrarily adopted§ ¶.

§An obvious place to think teleologically is in biology, where completetrees are embedded in little seeds. See, for example, Colin Allen,“Teleological Notions in Biology”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Phi-

losophy (Summer 2004 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). Online at:http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2004/entries/teleology-biology/

¶A very contentious area containing a backward causation component is in thesolution of electromagnetic radiation problems. Here it is well known that thewave equation includes both a retarded solution (forward in time) and a so-called advanced solution (backward in time). See, for example, J.G. Cramer,“Generalized absorber theory and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox,”Physical Review D 22, 362-376 (1980), for a review of the Wheeler-Feynmanabsorber theory; or even C.A. Mead, Collective Electrodynamics: Quantum

Foundations of Electromagnetism, MIT Press (2000).

However, this general desire in science for causal

processes as the foundation for physical universe

is possibly an observational selection effect.

This particular observational selection effect is a

result of our immersion in an apparently forward

progression of (the so-called) time.

Or as Jan Faye‖ puts it: “Our ordinary notion of causation

does not track any nomological feature of the world. What

counts as the cause and the effect depends on the observer’s

projection of his or her temporal sense onto the world.”

‖Jan Faye, op. cit., §4.4.

Dualism and Funda-Mentality

Cartesian Cut∗∗††

Res extensia

(Matter)

Locality and Causality

IN Space-Time

Res cogitans

(Mind)

Non-locality and Non-causal

NOT IN Space-Time

∗∗This graphic adapted from B.J. Hiley, ”Non-commutative Geometry, theBohm Interpretation and the Mind-Matter Relationship,” Proceeding of

CASYS 2000, Liege, Belgium, August 2000.††This ‘classic dualism’ puts Mind squarely in Negative universe.

∗ Many recent works in the area of quantum consciousness

provide a softer dualism (if you will), and - as with classic

dualism - place the foundations for mental processes into an

area aptly named pre-space†. This pre-space-thing is of course

that same aspect of Universe we labeled as Negative universe.

I now take

Mind as something that resides in Negative universe

†A term similar in designation here is pregeometry - used first in C.W. Misner,K.S. Thorne and J.A. Wheeler, Gravitation, W.H. Freeman, San Francisco(1973).

∗ For example, Stuart Hameroff has this to say about the

Penrose-Hameroff ‘Orch OR’ model‡: “... according to our

model, consciousness was occurring at the level of quantum

gravity, at the fundamental (funda-mental) level of space-time

geometry at the Planck scale, . . . ”§

‡Stuart R. Hameroff, op. cit..§This Orch OR model places the quantum computational connection betweenphysical universe and Negative universe is the cell cytoskeleton microtubulesof neurons, operating at 40 Hz - quantum collapses every 25 ms - involving2 × 1010 tubulins per conscious event. See, for example, Stuart Hameroff,et. al., “Conduction Pathways in microtubules, biological quantum compu-tation, and consciousness,” BioSystems 64, 149-168 (2002).

On the nature of Gravity

(¶ However) I now take - as R. Buckminster Fuller did‖

Gravity as an instantaneous most economical

interrelationship of all energy events

Thus Gravity has a non-spatio-temporal, or (a computationally)

global attribute outside the physical universe (i.e., a habitation

in Negative universe).

¶In is still unresolved as to whether gravity is a radiative force - mediated bythe so-called graviton. In discussions of my computational cosmography, Ihave framed Gravity as a co-evolving tensional quality of the place wherematter/energy (type things) reside.

‖R.B. Fuller, ibid.

Gravity and Mind as Teleological Prime Movers

Both Mind and Gravity have now been surmised to have a

non-spatio-temporal essence; and thusly both have global

attributes ‘outside’ physical universe.

Mind and Gravity reside in Negative universe

In order to computationally steer any type of useful∗∗

simulation, some type of algorithmic control mechanism is

required. These control mechanism(s) need be affected from

outside the computational simulation proper.

∗∗I do not suppose at this time to speculate on what posthumans would finduseful, but rather only point to the need for control capabilities.

So. . . how could PHS computationally steer a Universe?

Towards this end, I submit that

Posthuman simulators could use Gravity and Mind as

teleological control mechanisms (i.e., Prime Movers).

Universe as Computation, Modern Aether Theory, and the Funda-Mentalistic Mind

In contemplating Universe as Computation, a dualist needs ponder both on how nature computes, and on how it is that Mind “stuff” interacts with nature. Here I elaborate on a Universe as Computation powered by a reality flux. Reality flux is the ensembles of virtual photons and anti-particles (some of which seemingly pass in and out of existence) that connects physical Universe (nature) with Negative Universe. Negative Universe (a R. Buckminster Fuller term) is a non-spatio-temporal (a Richard Rorty term) abode which – as we conjecture below – provides sanctuary for the things of the reality flux and for Mental forms associated with thought. Herein we also find the germane suggestion that the quantum nature of (physical) mental processes requires that brain interact directly with Universe in total - via Negative Universe; thus consciousness has a necessary global essence (and attributes that snuggle well with the Penrose-Hameroff Orch OR model).

The modern computer requires power source and ground available throughout the circuitry. The Universe as Computation likewise requires reality flux throughout, thus serving - in electrical terms - as both a source and ground for Universe as Computation. Universe as Computation is not a Von Neumann type computation where representations of physical events are brought into a central processing area for calculation, from whence the results of the physical event would be “written” back (into some holographic representation?). In Universe as Computation, both data (the physical things – e.g., stuff of the standard model) and instructions (e.g., physical laws) co-exist within an active background lattice system in a similar fashion to computation techniques involving FPGA; where data is imbedded in the Field Programmable Gate Array with the circuits that perform the calculations.

In Universe as Computation, the lattice background is a dynamic substratum which co-evolves with the “things” that live therein. Pre-geometry rules framed by R. Buckminster Fuller’s synergetic geometry considerations provide geometrical constraints on the events that evolve within the lattice substrate, and constraints on the substratum itself. Further, in Universe as Computation, the background substratum grows/expands from witheverywhere [sic] due to a jitterbug action at all locations in the substratum where physical events occur. The reality flux (required in modern quantum mechanical theories of the quantum vacuum for all physical events) drives the lattice substratum jitterbugging growth. The combination of reality flux, the dynamic substratum, and Negative Universe form a modern aether upon/wherein/wherefrom all “things” occur and all physical law is/are manifest(ed).

For the dualist, reality flux serves as a communication channel whereupon Mental forms (related to thought) in Negative Universe interact with brain (in physical Universe) through Penrose-Hameroff Orch OR type events. (Similar to Penrose’s view that mind interacts with fundamental levels of space-time.) This dualist model, wherein all Mental forms reside in Negative Universe, gives in fact a global aspect to consciousness; to wit, the single Negative Universe connects to all “places” in physical Universe via the communication channel that is reality flux (allowing then also for - among other things - quantum non-locality realizations and a Divine Mind).

COMMENTS:

I utilize many an idea from my computational cosmography (a theory wherein computation is viewed – in part - as an interacting dance of polyhedral forms). See, e.g., J.F. Nystrom, "Tensional Computation: Further Musings on the Computational Cosmography,'' Applied Mathematics and Computation 120, 211-225 (2001), or J.F. Nystrom, "On the Omni-directional Emergence of Form in Computation,'' Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3305, 632-641 (2004). I use Negative Universe to describe that aspect of the quantum vacuum where antiparticles flux to-and-fro when they (i.e., the antiparticles) are not in the physical universe. I submit that reality flux serves a similar purpose in the computation of Universe that current (and voltage difference) play in modern computers. Here then Negative universe acts as both a “source” and “ground” for process in Universe. Further, the Negative Universe is the residence for Penrose’s Platonic truths, the Quantum Buddhists’ cosmic wisdom, et. al., which all exhibit a type of non-spatio-temporal habitation in Universe total. I have proposed, as R. Buckminster Fuller did, that Mental forms reside in Negative Universe. We are to take this literally, and then realize that the physics of thought process involves the interaction of these Mental forms with physical brain(s) via Orch OR by way of a reality flux action. We should however resist making too many assumptions about what restrictions are placed on the “stuff” of Negative Universe. I frame Negative Universe separate in concept from reality flux proper, and then comment on how when all is put together, these ideas are just another version of the age-old aether theories (as are, in my opinion, many of the other consciousness discussion ideas coming about recently; to wit: In Quantum Mind 2007 Abstracts, #7 (Hameroff), #10 (Lepine), and #16 (Schafer), all indicate the need for some type of non-spatio-temporal background thing-y… which we should just agree to designate as a type of aether).

On some theoretical problems with brain emulation


Ferris State University

Big Rapids, USA

TOWARD A SCIENCE OF CONSCIOUSNESS 2011

S T O C K H O L M, S W E D E N

4 May 2011

On some theoretical problems with brain emulation

If we presume an objective reality in which Mind and matter have a type of quantum mechanically imposed dualist nature, then there results some potential theoretical problems with the idea of Brain emulation. In the remainder of this abstract I discuss the specific type of dualism I advocate, and provide details on a theoretical problem that could cause, for example, Fred's Brain emulation (that Fred presumably built) to make the real Fred effectively (brain-)dead.

According to modern physics the actions of a quantum vacuum are required in order for any process at all to exist in Universe. I have previously described a model for how the quantum vacuum actions should be separated into a non-spatio-temporal abode (which I call Negative Universe) and a reality flux mechanism (which involves all the antiparticles and virtual particles that are part of the quantum vacuum actions). A reality flux can thus mediate “communication” between Negative Universe and physical Universe. This model of how the quantum vacuum provides a scaffolding for a Universe as computation has profound implications for how Mind interacts with physical Universe. Here, Mind would reside in Negative Universe, while matter and energy are things in physical Universe. This model is similar to both the Penrose-Hameroff model which uses a separate Platonic World (or intrinsic space-time geometry) to support Mind functioning, and to Jaegwon Kim’s very Cartesian speculation that “the world is split in two with Minds on one side and stuff on the other.”

To elucidate the issues associated with the possibility of Brain emulation, I now work from the presumption that each individual Mind does reside outside physical Universe (in Negative Universe) and maintains a “connection” (if you will) with a Brain (in physical Universe) through actions of the reality flux. This dualist presumption raises serious consequences for those who would suppose to build brain emulations (by, for example, replicating the wiring and functioning of a human-like brain). To wit: If a Mind currently “connected” to a Brain all of a sudden has two choices of what to “connect” to in physical Universe; if it (i.e., the Mind) chooses to “connect” to a brain emulation of Fred after Fred turns the brain emulation on, this Mind could then (probably) cease to “connect” with Fred’s human brain, thus rendering Fred (brain-)dead; albeit with Fred’s Mind “living on” by now being “connected” to the brain emulation.

There are other possible problems which presume first of all that Negative Universe is the repository for Minds currently not in use. Thus, the building of generic brain emulations could cause: (*) a

potential depletion of Universe soul/Mind inventories, and (*) interruptions in the Hindu reincarnation process by capturing a Mind destined for elsewhere. Lastly, it is important to note that the builders would also in effect be mimicking a Gnostic Demiurge by entrapping a Mind in something of their own creation.

nystroj

Placed Image

Overall idea∗

If we presume an objective reality in which Mind and matter

have a type of quantum mechanically imposed dualist nature,

then there results some potential theoretical problems with the

idea of brain emulation.

∗My motivation here is from the viewpoint of a computational philosopher,whose main interest is in how Universe in-total computes.

Contents of the talk

� Introduction

� Quantum vacuum supported Dualism

� Theoretical problems with brain emulation

� Questions

An objective reality?

When contemplating the possibility of an objective reality, Isubmit it may be best if the physical Universe is imagined as aseething dance of energy events whose true dynamics should becouched in terms of Planck lengths, Planck time†, andWheeler’s quantum foam‡, and whose quantum descriptionwould include so-called virtual particles (and anti-matter)which seemingly pass in and out of physical existence and thatmay even deploy effects both forward and backward in time.†The Planck scale is the proposed bottom-level for physical events. Here,e.g., lP ' 1.16× 10−35 m, and tP ' 5.4× 10−44 s.‡In Wheelers words: “I found myself forced to invent the idea of quantumfoam, made up nor merely of particles popping into and out of existencewithout limit, but of space-time itself churned into a lather of distortedgeometry.”

The quantum vacuum§ is a term used the describe certain

peculiar aspects in modern physical theory. It is the case that

negative energy electrons (i.e., positrons) and other

antiparticles are required in the quantum theory for Lorentz

invariance (i.e., special relativity considerations) and causality¶.

The antiparticles and the virtual photons that surround physical

electrons are assumed to literally jump in and out of existence,

which in turn creates a type of enormous reality flux that is in

fact required in order for process in Universe to exist.

§P.W. Milonni, The Quantum Vacuum: An Introduction to Quantum Elec-trodynamics, Academic Press (1993).¶P.W. Milonni, ibid.

I use the term Negative universe‖ to describe that aspect∗∗ ofthe quantum vacuum where antiparticles flux to-and-fro whenthey (i.e., the antiparticles) are not in the physical universe.

I further submit that reality flux here acts like a power sourcefor the functioning of physical Universe.

reality flux provides the mechanisms for things analogous tocurrent and voltage difference – which are the electricalproperties that are needed for modern electronics. Here thenNegative universe acts as both a “source” and “ground” forprocess in physical Universe.‖A term borrowed from R.B. Fuller. R.B. Fuller, Synergetics: Explorations inthe Geometry of Thinking, Macmillan Publishing, New York (1975). Onlineat: http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/synergetics.html

∗∗For lack of a better term here. Calling Negative universe a ‘place’ wouldimply a spatial essence.

reality flux and the jitterbug of space

At every “point in the foam” reality flux powers a jitterbug:

nystroj

Placed Image

nystroj

Placed Image

Quantum consciousness and theelephant in the physicist’s room†‡§

†J.F. Nystrom, “Ontological musings on how nature computes,” ICCS 2010,Amsterdam, The Netherlands, May/June 2010. [Published in Procedia Com-puter Science 1, 77-86 (2010).]‡J.F. Nystrom, “Universe as Computation, Modern Aether Theory, and theFunda-Mentalistic Mind,” Toward a Science of Consciousness 2008, Tuc-son, Arizona USA, April 2008. [Published in the Consciousness ResearchAbstracts of Toward a Science of Consciousness 2008, a service from theJournal of Consciousness Studies.]§J.F. Nystrom, “Teleological Mechanism for the Simulation Argument,” (Ab-stract accepted, but not presented at) Quantum Mind 2007, Salzburg, Aus-tria, July 2007. [Published in the Consciousness Research Abstracts ofQuantum Mind 2007, a service from the Journal of Consciousness Studies.]

Dualism of Mind and Matter

Classic Cartesian Cut¶‖∗∗

Res extensia

(Matter)

Locality and Causality

IN Space-Time

Res cogitans

(Mind)

Non-locality and Non-causal

NOT IN Space-Time

¶This graphic adapted from B.J. Hiley, ”Non-commutative Geometry, theBohm Interpretation and the Mind-Matter Relationship,” Proceeding ofCASYS 2000, Liege, Belgium, August 2000.‖Jaegwon Kim’s speculation that “the world is split in two with minds on oneside and stuff on the other” encompasses the same idea.

∗∗This ‘classic dualism’ puts Mind squarely in Negative universe.

∗ Many works in the area of quantum consciousness provide a

softer dualism (if you will), and - as with classic dualism - place

the foundations for mental processes into an area aptly named

pre-space†.

∗ Penrose makes use of a Platonic World outside of Physical

Universe for the abode of things needed for mental processes.

For our purposes, Penrose’s Platonic World will fit into the

non-spatio-temporal abode‡ of Negative Universe.

†This pre-space-thing is similar to that aspect of Universe I have labeledas Negative universe. A term similar in designation here is pregeometry -used first in C.W. Misner, K.S. Thorne and J.A. Wheeler, Gravitation, W.H.Freeman, San Francisco (1973).‡A Richard Rorty term.

∗ For example, Stuart Hameroff has this to say about the

Penrose-Hameroff ‘Orch OR’ model: “... according to our

model, consciousness was occurring at the level of quantum

gravity, at the fundamental (funda-mental) level of space-time

geometry at the Planck scale, . . . ”§

§This Orch OR model places the quantum computational connection betweenphysical universe and Negative universe is the cell cytoskeleton microtubulesof neurons, operating at 40 Hz - quantum collapses every 25 ms - involving2 × 1010 tubulins per conscious event. See, for example, Stuart Hameroff,et. al., “Conduction Pathways in microtubules, biological quantum compu-tation, and consciousness,” BioSystems 64, 149-168 (2002).

Mind and brain are in different realms

∗ The Penrose-Hameroff Orch OR mechanism, being a type of

connection between Negative Universe and brain (in physical

Universe), can be thought of as being part of the reality flux

mechanism.

Thus some of us (seem to) agree that

Mind is something that resides in Negative universe

The Brain Builders Dream¶‖∗∗ (not mine)

∗ Functionalism and computationalism take the assumption

that Mind is solely a result of “brain” functioning.

∗ Substrate independence takes the assumption that “brains”

can be built of stuff other that the biological stuff our brains

are built with.¶Sandberg, A. & Bostrom, N. (2008): Whole Brain Emulation: A Roadmap,Technical Report #2008-3, Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford University.‖Ray Kurzweil, THE SINGULARITY IS NEAR: When Humans TranscendBiology, Viking Adult (2005).

∗∗Hugo de Garis, The Artilect War: Cosmists Vs. Terrans: A Bitter Contro-versy Concerning Whether Humanity Should Build Godlike Massively Intelli-gent Machines, ETC Publications (2005).

Functionalism is (probably) wrong

∗ Dualism (between Mind and matter) needs arise when we

take an assumption that certain aspects of Mind are

non-computable†; implying then that there are aspects of Mind

that are not simply a result of brain activity.

∗ The model presented here in this talk presumes each

individual Mind “computes” in Negative Universe and connects

with an individual brain‡ (in physical Universe) via mechanisms

in the reality flux.

†Non-computable, that is, in the physical Universe.‡Here, the good analogy is that the brain is acting like an antenna, and - aspecific - Mind is the ‘signal” being received.

A problem with Fred’s brain emulation

∗ This scenario begins when a computationalist scientist Fred

decides to construct a brain emulation of himself after a

non-destructive brain mapping technique has been discovered.

∗ The problem arises when Fred decides to turn his brain

emulation “on.”

∗ With the presumption that Fred’s Mind is currently

connected to his physical brain (via the reality flux), when the

brain emulation is turned on, Fred’s Mind now could have a

choice as to which brain of Fred’s it connects to . . .

If Fred’s Mind connects to the brain emulation of Fred, this

could render Fred brain-dead;

albeit with Fred’s Mind “living on” by now being connected to

the brain emulation (of Fred) that Fred presumably built.

Other theoretical problems with brain emulation

∗ If we take the assumption that Negative Universe is therepository for Minds currently not in use, then the building ofgeneric brain emulations could cause some other (theoretical)problems.

∗ A mass market in brain emulators could cause a potentialdepletion of Universe soul/Mind inventories.

∗ Capturing a Mind (“out of” the Negative Universe) into abuilt brain emulation could interrupt that particular Mind’sHindu reincarnation process – if in fact that particular Mindwas already destined for elsewhere (presumably “into” abiological brain(?)).

∗ The most difficult theoretical problem is also an ethical

problem† in that the brain emulation builder would in effect be

capturing/entrapping(?) Mind into something of their own

creation.

This is exactly the complaint against the Gnostic‡ Demiurge,

whom is blamed for entrapping soul/Mind into the flesh of man.

†Bostrom has tried to elucidate the details in his 2005 draft of his EthicalPrinciples in the Creation of Artificial Minds.‡Gnosticism is an ancient religion that has seen many forms. For example,see Hans Jonas, The Gnostic Religion, Beacon Press (1971).

Recap

∗ A quantum vacuum supported dualism was described which

places Mind in Negative Universe; connecting to a brain in

physical Universe via the reality flux.

∗ With this dualist Mind-brain model as a presumption, I

identified several theoretical problems that may arise if brain

emulations are actually built§.

§Substrate independence suggests non-biological brains could be built, butmy model here would require each non-biological brain to connect with areal Mind “out of” Negative Universe.

On quantum vacuum mechanisms, the objective reality, and the

essence of Mind

I investigate nonduality of an objective reality in which Mind

and matter have a quantum mechanically imposed dualism (in a

Cartesian sense). I surmise that if Negative Universe (part of

the quantum vacuum (QV) mechanism) is included as an aspect of

the 'substance,' then this model is compatible with nonduality

ideals.

Nonduality proposes a single 'substance' within/whereupon all

physical and metaphysical experiences are realized – thus

establishing a non-separation of all 'things.' Nonduality can

explain attributes of Universe that are independent of time, but

nonduality also needs apply to energy events that have time-

domain patterns in physical Universe. I take the ontological

stance that Universe has two fundamental parts. The physical part

(i.e., physical Universe) utilizes Wheeler's quantum foam at the

bottom level of computation. The reality flux, a QV mechanism,

connects physical Universe with the second fundamental part of

Universe, an abode I labeled Negative Universe (NU). The reality

flux involves the QV required virtual particles and antimatter

that seemingly pass in and out of existence and may even deploy

effects both forward and backward in time. The NU is the abode

for (among other things) the things of the reality flux.

As Rorty and Penrose insist, Mind partly exhibits non-spatio-

temporal and/or non-computable characteristics. In previous

papers, I have placed the 'computation' of mental activities in

NU – interacting with brain (an antenna) in physical Universe via

an Orch-OR type mechanism (mediated by reality flux). With Mind

operating out of NU, Mind 'falls down' (if you will) into brain

(in a very Gnostic sense); which allows individual brains access

to Plato's Divine Mind and Huxley’s Mind-at-Large. The Nature of

the Self emerges from our brains access to signals from both (A)

an objective physical Universe, and (B) a borrowed eternal Mind

which resides in the non-spatio-temporal abode of NU.

next paper idea

“On why that brain/Mind machine you have in that secret

government lab is always psychotic when you turn the switch

on”

Questions?

Dedication

R. Buckminster Fuller, that funny little man who imagined Things

and No Things; who was convinced that nature has an underlying

geometrical basis; who envisioned Universe as an entity operating

in pure principle only, and who also intuited the need for a Negative

Universe. This humble work is dedicated to Bucky, well known in

the later years of his life as the world’s friendly genius.

So then it was one design of the first institution of the true

religion to propose to mankind by the frame of the ancient

temples, the study of the frame of the world as the temple of

the great God they worshiped ... So then the first religion was

the most rational of all others till the nations corrupted it. For

there is no way (without revelation) to come to the knowledge

of a deity but by the frame of nature.

- Isacc Newton

from his notebooks, by way of

M. White’s Isaac Newton: the last sorcerer.

e1

e2

e3

e4

e5

e6

on some things that may be of concern to the modern mystic

Documents

Transcript of on some things that may be of concern to the modern mystic