Reality — What Is This Thing?
I have written about pretty far-out stuff on this blog. Future superintelligent computers going haywire (here), possible multiverses containing our doppelgängers giving us non-local immortality (here), the hypothesis that we live in a simulation (here). You have to have a certain kind of worldview to take these speculations seriously. In this post I will try to paint a picture of what that worldview looks like. This will involve some hand-waving and elaborating on some subjects I’m far from an expert in. I might misrepresent facts in any of these subjects. This is not an attempt to make a strong defence of my worldview, I’m just presenting it to make my beliefs explicit and hopefully illuminate the reasons for my focus on future technology and the nature of reality.
It’s easy to take modern technology for granted, but if you think about it for a second you realise that it’s really remarkable. Sometimes it can feel like magic. At the risk of rehashing a boring cliché, I will remind you of some of the miracles of modern technology. There are wagons made of metal pulled by invisible superhorses. Stiff giant birds gracefully carrying hundreds of people thousands of kilometers (or miles) in the sky. People touching a slab of lit-up glass in their hands that can send and receive messages, talk to almost anyone regardless of distance, play any music, display any image or video, buy almost anything, get directions to anywhere and distribute information invisibly through the air that is accessible to billions of people virtually without delay, each slab powered by billions of small electrical switches, switching on and off billions of times a second. There are robots on Mars, and we landed one on a comet. People are floating in a space station cruising around the Earth faster than the fastest bullet.
It feels like the last couple of centuries, the development of technology has really taken off. I think this is supported by the evidence, change in economic output has gone from almost horizontal to almost vertical when plotted on a graph over the last two millennia (1).
For the first time in human history, economical growth has outpaced population growth, making most people much richer. The global average income has increased tenfold (2) and the fraction of world population in extreme poverty has declined from about 90 percent to 10 percent since the 19th century (3). The effect of modern technology is not always positive, a demonstration of the unchecked and sometimes unintended power of our technology is our impact on the climate. A sign of modern technology can be seen on the carbon dioxide record, which looks normal for hundreds of thousands of years until about 1950, when it shoots straight up. With deliberate climate engineering, a large country could apparently usher in an ice age if it feels like it by spending a tiny fraction of its GDP, and moderate climate engineering might be a part of the solution to climate change (4). It can feel as though the present is the normal state for things to be in, Eliezer Yudkowsky jokingly points out in one of his talks that the world seems to tend towards greater and greater ”normality”. He brings up that women used to be unable to vote, that is odd from our perspective. Going back further, things were even stranger. However, if you could take an outside view of human life since the origin our species, it would really be in the last few pages of the story where things became strange, and it should not be farfetched to expect this trend towards greater strangeness to continue.
Our ability to manipulate the world at an ever greater degree is strongly linked to our increasing scientific understanding of the world. Philosopher Rebecca Goldstein says about science that it ”gets reality itself to collaborate with us”, by ”prob[ing] reality so that it will answer us back when we are getting it wrong” (5). Someone has an idea about how some facet of reality works and comes up with a test that will settle whether they’re wrong, then others try the experiment themselves to check if the originator of the hypothesis deluded herself. Virtuous scientists are always on the lookout for subtle ways in which the predictions of a theory fails. For instance, in the 19th century people were confused by Mercurys orbit, because it did not seem to follow the law of Newtonian physics. When general relativity came along, where gravity is conceptualised as the curvature of spacetime, Mercurys orbit made sense (6). This was a big point in favour of the theory.
In a video on the Veritasium channel on Youtube, Derek Muller tells strangers that he has a rule for sequences of three numbers and he gives an example of a sequence that follows his rule: 2, 4, 8. He then asks the strangers to figure out what rule he has in mind by suggesting their own sequences. The participants suggest sequences that follows the rule that they assume is the right one (they think, reasonably, that consecutive numbers must be twice as large as the one before). Derek tells them that the sequences they come up with follows his rule but that they have not figured out his rule, and they keep suggesting new sequences that follows the rule that they assumed was correct from the start. After a while they realise, with a little help from Derek, that this perpetual confirmation of their original hypothesis doesn’t get them closer to Derek’s rule. It’s not until they try to disprove their hypothesis, by suggesting a sequence that violates the assumed rule, that they make progress towards the right rule (which turns out to just be ascending order). This mindset is a important component in the toolset of scientists. You make progress by trying to refute yourself and others and only what survives scrutiny is given credence. This simple falsification-based view of science can be amplified with the more extensive Bayesian account which I won’t cover here. It specifies how your credences in any theory or hypothesis should change as new evidence becomes available.
One seemingly necessary condition for successful science is mathematics. Galileo Galilei, who helped birth the scientific revolution, compared nature to a book written in the language of mathematics (7). Physicist Eugene Wigner wrote about ”The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences”, the (perhaps surprising) fact that nature follows intelligible mathematical rules. After Maxwell discovered his equation for electromagnetism we mastered electricity, rockets use Newton’s law of gravitation to reach orbit, nuclear power as well as weapons was developed through discoveries in particle physics, and the computer industry depends on quantum mechanics in order to make transistors work (8). Engineering students are taught physics and math because we make technologies work by understanding the forces and laws that govern them, although maybe also because those are difficult subjects that can be used to showcase a students competence. In some cases, the necessity of science for technological development might be overstated, it could be the case that some technologies that came after scientific breakthroughs could have been invented and perfected without scientific theories and could instead rely only on trial-and-error and heuristics, but it would probably take a lot more time and resources.
One way to benchmark the pace of technological progress is by comparing it to the first ”design process” (9) in the universe: evolution. Humans have developed in a few centuries technology with abilities that took evolution by natural selection millions of years to acquire and perfect. Flying, seeing and hearing (detecting photons and air waves), harnessing and storing solar energy to take a few examples. Sometimes when we put serious effort into an ability, we have pushed that ability further than evolution ever has. Airplanes fly faster than any bird, boring machines can dig through harder material than any animal can. This is partly because we arguably use a more effective ”design process” than evolution, we make use of our (imperfect) scientific understanding, rationality, and planning ability as opposed to evolution, and partly because we can focus on improving any desired feature, whereas evolution always and only (and accidentally) optimizes inclusive fitness. We can also make use of designs unavailable to evolution, because the designs from evolution can only improve gradually. A classic example is the wheel, because there is no use in a half-finished couple of wheels and there are no roads in nature. Nuclear power is another technology that arguably will never be available to the ”design process” of evolution because it requires rare, enriched non-organic materials, large facilities and planning.
It’s in part due to this perspective that I take the possibility of smarter-than-human machines seriously. Intelligence is an evolved ability (governed by the laws of physics I might add) that we are making progress on understanding and reproducing artificially, and just like with many other technologies we can probably take the desired ability to further heights than can be found in nature. It has been pointed out (but I can’t remember where) that after a certain human cognitive ability has been automated, it can instantly or soon after be done faster and better artificially.
A mindless pattern
So what I’ve done so far is to somewhat haphazardly suggest we live in a strange era in which we are rearranging matter into useful stuff much faster than evolution accomplished similar things, in large parts arguably thanks to scientific progress. I want to say two things with this. Firstly, it should not be too far fetched to think that we can keep this pace up and eventually outperform evolution in the design of intelligent things, perhaps not far from now, which should unlock even faster technological developments – a telescoping of the future, to use Nick Bostrom’s words. Secondly, if you work from the assumption that the world is intelligible and constituted of physical stuff interacting according to mathematical rules, you can make remarkably precise predictions (10) and do remarkably powerful stuff. We have, to my knowledge, never found anything that contradicts that assumption. Lightning was thought to be angry God’s, disease and natural disaster was thought to be God punishing the sinners, and sacrifice was thought to control the weather. Supernatural accounts of natural phenomena has one after one been overtaken by a scientific explanation, never has the refinement of explanation gone the other way. In that case, the world might really be constituted entirely of physical stuff following mathematical rules. This means that there would be no purpose at the fundamental level of reality, just clockwork. No one makes sure that whatever goes on is fair, and there is no lowest limit on how bad it’s allowed to get. We have no benevolent cosmic father who looks after us and steps in if things gets out of hand (11). It’s just particles (or waves in quantum fields) mindlessly following rules without exception. As long as it’s allowed by the laws of physics, it can happen. The physicist Sean Carroll describes the world poetically as caught in the grip of an unbreakable pattern. A sequence of states (like the quantum mechanical wave function at different instances) following each other according to a mathematical rule (the Schrödinger equation). Each state determines the next, like the states of Conway’s game of life evolving according to programmed rules.
The world can be described at different levels, with physics being the most fundamental to the best of our knowledge. It’s not useful when explaining why someone delivered a pizza, or how plate tectonics work to talk only in terms of fundamental particles and the laws of physics, even though everything that happens is determined by them. As Dan Dennett notes in a discussion about this topic, someone who knows everything about the universe at the fundamental level, but nothing else i.e. had no conception of chairs, people and pizza delivery apps (Laplace’s demon), would be surprised by the efficiency of a simple human who can predict with fairly high reliability that a pizza will be delivered to his door in 30 minutes without having the knowledge about the position and velocity of every particle in the universe, and not the computing power required to calculate their trajectories. Understanding the world at the higher level of description with emergent features like money, social trust, and language is indeed indispensable to us, even though they are not necessary for Laplace’s demon to make perfect predictions.
Do we have free will on this view, if we’re just collections of particles mindlessly following rules? I’m a compatibilist, which means that I think free will (the ability to make choices, see more in note 12) is compatible with determinism, the theory that every events is the necessary result of what happened before it. I’m not sure if the universe is deterministic, but free will better be compatible with determinism for us to have free will, because introducing randomness doesn’t seem to help. I’d rather my decisions where determined by my previous experiences, intuition and deliberation than by a roll of the dice (I think).
A concept I find useful is the distinction between the manifest and scientific image of the world, the world as it appears to our senses and the world as it is unveiled by science. The manifest image and the scientific image aren’t always easy to reconcile, as in the case of free will where the feeling that you could have done otherwise which some people see as essential for free will clashes with the scientific view of brains as collections of particles obeying physical laws. In this case, I think the feeling is mistaken and that our notion of free will should be adjusted to fit the scientific view. The manifest image and the scientific image are true in different senses, the manifest image is true in the sense that what your experience of the world is a real experience. Even if you’re a brain in a vat, you can claim things like “I experience a red car” and not be mistaken, but you can be mistaken about the causes of your experience (the car might exist only as a representation in signals fed into your visual system). The scientific image is our best account of the causes of our experiences, and we can reach beyond our raw senses with microscopes, telescopes, infrared cameras and other tools to get a richer view of reality. I think we should trust our scientific understanding over our hunches and raw perception when they disagree about the cause of our experiences. It shouldn’t be surprising if the universe violates our common sense, we’re evolved to deal with the challenges of the African savanna – not the nature of reality (I recommend this talk by Richard Dawkins on the topic).
The most important thing I can’t fit into the scientific, naturalist, view is consciousness. I don’t understand how it can exist. But it is the very last thing I would deny. While apparent causes of experiences can be illusory, conscious experience itself, I submit, cannot be an illusion. It’s the very stage where illusions can appear. However, it seems to be a hard problem to explain why and how physical processes give rise to subjective experience. ”As physicists work toward completing a theory of the universe and biologists unravel the molecular complexity of life, a glaring incompleteness in this scientific vision becomes apparent. The ‘theory of everything’ that appears to be emerging includes everything but us […] We need a ‘theory of everything’ that does not leave it absurd that we exist.” says the back of Incomplete Nature by Terrance Deacon, which exposes his attempt of filling the missing piece. I’ve read two different accounts of consciousness by naturalists, Incomplete Nature and Dennett’s Consciousness explained as well as Brian Tomasik’s writings on consciousness, which echoes Dennett’s. Reading these accounts didn’t get me closer to feeling satisfied with a resolution. Steven Pinker summarises (13) the believed function that consciousness plays according to some neuroscientists as a blackboard in the brain where ”a diverse set of computational modules can post their results in a common format that all the other modules can ’see’” These modules include perception, memory, language and action planning. This seems like a plausible account of the biological function of consciousness to me, but it doesn’t explain the nature of first-person subjectivity.
I think there is a physical process that causes me to believe and say that I’m conscious. I would like to think that this process is informed by the fact that I am conscious, that is, I would like my consciousness to be the reason for why I say that I’m conscious. I think that a perfect computer simulation of me would be conscious (it would talk and write about consciousness just like me, and I think these things are caused by actually having consciousness), so I think a computational process can know that there is consciousness associated with the computation. The question is this: how come some computations are accompanied by consciousness? This question seems kind of hopelessly difficult (14), if it is a good question. Would any answer feel satisfactory? To any answer of the type “because of this particular process”, you could reply: why isn’t that process going on “in the dark” like any other? I’m tempted to believe that consciousness is coming from somewhere else, and the computation is merely summoning the consciousness, which exist outside the physical world. But how could a physical system know and report that it is conscious, unless consciousness is interacting with that physical system? The non-physical would have to interact with the physical, but this violates the Completeness principle, namely that all physical effects appear to have sufficient physical causes. The only way out seems to be epiphenomenalism, which states that mental events are determined by physical processes, but mental events have no casual role in the physical system. You, the conscious witness, would be a silent, powerless witness. According to epiphenonenalism, the reason why I’m thinking and writing about consciousness has nothing to do with the fact that I’m conscious, which seems dubious. I’m left thinking that consciousness must be a feature of some physical, and hence computable, processes. However, conscious experience have properties that seem impossible to grow out from a mathematical pattern, since these properties are nowhere to be found in mathematics. This is the biggest question mark about my current worldview. My working assumption is that those that claim to answer or dissolve this question mark are correct and that I don’t need to dramatically change worldview, it might however be appropriate to take a quick glance at an alternative worldview.
An alternative worldview
Cognitive scientists Donald Hoffman has a radically different belief about the world, where conscious experience is fundamental. Reality on his view is composed only of minds, and minds made up of minds. These minds don’t see the world as it is but instead see useful evolutionary adaptive illusions. ”Snakes and trains”, he says in an interview, ”have no objective, observer-independent features. The snake I see is a description created by my sensory system to inform me of the fitness consequences of my actions.” My problem with theories about reality that have no objective observer-independent features, by which I take to mean no true facts, only interpretations, is that the nature of the observers themselves is unsupported. To say that an observer makes a certain interoperation, is that also only an observer-dependant interpretation? To say that an observer exists, is that only an observer-dependant interpretation? Donald Hoffman’s theory doesn’t have this flaw, it is based on a mathematical model of observers, so they do have a specified observer-independent nature, even though everything is observers. I don’t know what to make of this theory, other than that I think it’s surprising that our illusion of reality designed by evolution for survival happens to be so consistent and mathematical, because even the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics are illusions on his view. Hoffman’s view doesn’t explain consciousness, but it at least positions it as fundamental, rather than something that unexplainably emerge. If his view or something resembling it would turn out to be correct, it would possibly have large implications for how to improve the world. Reality would turn out to be very different than it appears. With an inaccurate world model, we might head in the wrong direction. I’m not sure how we should take into account uncertainty about ontology in altruistic efforts, or how much uncertainty it is reasonable to have in the scientific view, given the question mark surrounding consciousness.
To sum up, science and technology are incredibly powerful according to my world view, they progress much faster and produces more powerful designs than evolution does for many of the features we care about, although not outperforming the creations of evolution in all metrics. We live in highly unusual times, economically and technologically, and we should expect things to get increasingly strange. The world runs like Conway’s game of life, a mathematical pattern with simple beginnings that grew in complexity over time. It operates with no purpose, no rhyme or reason and there is no guardian who limits the depth of the abysses in the landscape we traverse. On the plus-side, nobody restricts the heights (this is not to say that the depths or heights are infinite). The mindless pattern underlies and determines everything, including the mindless “design process” of evolution, and the human mind. The human mind is the first and only known entity in the universe that has learned about the mindless and unbreakable pattern, and has come to know the rules the pattern follows in everyday life, i.e. the rules that govern us and our local surroundings. I give credence to this scientific worldview because of its predictive power and the technological progress it has made possible. The big question mark for me is consciousness, how does subjective experience with intrinsic properties emerge from a mindless pattern? The question might be fundamentally confused, I’m certainly also open to that possibility.
I wanted to write this post to explain my focus on future technology, such as superintelligence, and the nature of reality, like the questions about whether we live in a multiverse or a simulation. Especially I want to answer why I take these things seriously. With my scientific view, where the world has no obligation to appeal to our common sense, I take seriously hypothesises that appear strange when these hypothesis are backed by good evidence or rigorous and rational thought, I even expect reality to violate most peoples sensibilities. With technology, humanity is exploiting the power inherent in nature revealed by science and this has made our science and technology rival evolution as the most advanced design process. If evolution can create intelligence, we might outperform it in a tiny fraction of the time (15). It could be important to know if this worldview is inaccurate, as it might profoundly shift what outcome-minded altruists should prioritize. For instance, if I’m wrong about general intelligence being a computable process that is feasible to replicate in machines, I should probably not focus as much on AI. If my assumptions about consciousness turns out to be wrong, that should impact how likely I think it is that we are in a simulation. If I come to realise that I’m too confident in the power of technology and common-sense violating scientific theories taken seriously by scientists, that should lower my relatively high credence in things like the multiverse, and that grand futures are possible and likely to occur in at least some branches of the multiverse, or far away in space on a twin-earth.
(1) https://ourworldindata.org/economic-growth As I’m required to mention by the CC-license: graph colors are edited.
(2) Page 426 of ”An Introduction to Global Health” by Michael Seear, Obidimma Ezezika
(7) Quote by Galileo: “Philosophy [nature] is written in that great bo…”
Cool fact: GPS satellites compensates for Einstein’s theory of relativity to transmit the right time. I think this is a surprising application of relativity, although it might not have been needed for GPS to work, arguably we would have figured it out with a space-clock experiment if nobody had yet figured out the theory of relativity, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System#Satellite_frequencies
(9) There is disagreements among naturalists about whether evolution should be called a ”design process” or not, so I use the term in scare quotes.
(10) In Quantum electrodynamics, one of the most accurate theories in physics, agreements between predictions of the theory and observations is within 10 parts in a billion for a certain test. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_tests_of_QED
(11) Unless we are simulated and the supervisor(s) of the simulation are benevolent
(12) There are different definitions of ”free will”, the one I’m using is from Wikipedia: ”Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded.” and more specifically I think of free will ”as a psychological capacity, such as to direct one’s behavior in a way responsive to reason”, this is the definition used by determinists, if you think the notion of ”could have done otherwise even if the conditions before the decision were exactly the same” is important in the definition of free will, then you would not be a compatibilist. I like this post by Sean Carroll on determinism and free will.
(13) Page 426, Enlightenment Now.
(14) Maybe that’s why it’s called the hard problem.
(15) One wrinkle in this argument is that the fact of our existence can bias us into thinking intelligence is a likelier outcome of evolution than it actually is, because we are only able to observe evolution in places where it did lead to intelligence, namely us. So the argument that if evolution can do it, so can we might not hold for things like human intelligence, where there could be observer selection effects. I still think a weak form of the argument holds when we look at species far away in the evolutionary tree that have impressive cognitive abilities, like octopi. Read more here.