The Quantum Simulation Hypothesis | David Chalmers | Part 1

David Chalmers gives a presentation at Mindfest 2024 about exploring the implications of digital and quantum simulations of consciousness, arguing that such simulations could theoretically replicate physical processes and even consciousness.
This presentation was recorded at MindFest, held at Florida Atlantic University, CENTER FOR THE FUTURE MIND, spearheaded by Susan Schneider.
Please consider signing up for TOEmail at www.curtjaimungal.org
LINKS MENTIONED:
- Center for the Future Mind (Mindfest @ FAU): www.fau.edu/future-mind/
- Other Ai and Consciousness (Mindfest) TOE Podcasts: • Mindfest (Ai & Conscio...
- Mathematics of String Theory (Video): • The String Theory Iceb...
Support TOE:
- Patreon: / curtjaimungal (early access to ad-free audio episodes!)
- Crypto: tinyurl.com/cryptoTOE
- PayPal: tinyurl.com/paypalTOE
- TOE Merch: tinyurl.com/TOEmerch
Follow TOE:
- NEW Get my 'Top 10 TOEs' PDF + Weekly Personal Updates: www.curtjaimungal.org
- Instagram: / theoriesofeverythingpod
- TikTok: / theoriesofeverything_
- Twitter: / toewithcurt
- Discord Invite: / discord
- iTunes: podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast...
- Pandora: pdora.co/33b9lfP
- Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/4gL14b9...
- Subreddit r/TheoriesOfEverything: / theoriesofeverything
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @theoriesofeverything

[@TheoriesofEverything]

Please consider signing up for TOEmail at www.curtjaimungal.org

[@WeichuWang-py9gb]

Had the pleasure of taking Dr. Chalmers' class on the philosophy of machine minds at NYU. Amazing lectures, easy-to-read slides, fun personality, great wisdom. I will always enjoy hearing this man talk

[@liminally-spacious]

That's really cool. He seems like he'd be fun to have a chat with, let alone a whole class.

[@teslafieldphysics4041]

Thanks Curt. People are catching on. It’s working. Don’t stop. Take care.

[@marcobiagini1878]

I am a physicist and I will explain why our scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological . My argument proves that the fragmentary structure of brain processes implies that brain processes are not a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness, which existence implies the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). I also argue that all emergent properties are subjective cognitive contructs used to approximately describe underlying physical processes, and that these descriptions refer only to mind-dependent entities. Consciousness, being implied by these cognitive contructs, cannot itself be an emergent property. Preliminary considerations: the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements. In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is just an abstract idea, a cognitive construct and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Similar considerations can be made for a sequence of elementary processes; sequence is a subjective and abstract concept. Mental experience is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and cognitive constructs, therefore mental experience cannot itself be a cognitive construct; obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness. (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams). From the above considerations it follows that only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, and consequently the only logically coherent and significant statement is that consciousness exists as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity is not physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity can be identified with what is traditionally called soul or spirit. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience. Some clarifications. The brain doesn't objectively and physically exist as a mind-independent entity since we create the concept of the brain by separating an arbitrarily chosen group of quantum particles from everything else. This separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional subjective criteria, independent of the laws of physics; actually there is a continuous exchange of molecules with the blood and when and how such molecules start and stop being part of the brain is decided arbitrarily. Brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a subjective abstractions used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole (and therefore every function/property/capacity attributed to the brain) is a subjective abstraction that does not refer to any mind-independendent reality. Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. However, an emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess; my arguments prove that this definition implies that emergent properties are only subjective cognitive constructs and therefore, consciousness cannot be an emergent property. Actually, all the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective/arbitrary classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described directly by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option is possible; in this case, more than one possible description). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes. Emergence is nothing more than a cognitive construct that is applied to physical phenomena, and cognition itself can only come from a mind; thus emergence can never explain mental experience as, by itself, it implies mental experience. My approach is scientific and is based on our scientific knowledge of the physical processes that occur in the brain; my arguments prove that such scientific knowledge excludes the possibility that the physical processes that occur in the brain could be a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness. Marco Biagini

[@mariobartholomew]

Surely you have studied well Donald Hoffmans and his colloboratives, the thesis on conscious agents, founded on evolutionary biology and perception. It deserves a lot of credit because it's perfect science , he proposes a minimal assumption, has a rigorous mathematical foundation, shows matmatical structures can boot up space-time , and it's setup to be tested experimentally at LHC on particle physics. What more do we need? And his open to anyone disproving any part of his theory. Can it get better? Sounds like a lot of ego on those who ignore it and stick to their insane physicalist theories in a pathetic corner of space time He has a good approach to solve the hard problem of consciousness and fits well with the wisdom of over 4,000 years from sages , mystics and saints that only an ignoramus idiot would not take seriously. Taking consciousness as fundamental provides a foundation that explains all the anecdotal data that can't be objectified scientifically, usually swept under the carpet by the ignorant, such as NDEs, UFO experience, OBEs, PSY, RV etc, and together with local realism being false, Nobel prizes recently, then now , space-time shown not be fundamental, with new mathematical structures found outside of space time, and the rest. Give me a break!!!

[@theotormon]

This has brought a much-needed round-up of the many perspectives into one place. Thank you Chalmers and Jaimungal. Truly for the sake of clarity we all need to be specifying what version of the simulation hypothesis we mean when we discuss.

[@EsoStoicInjun]

All of these models of consiousness are straying away from actually truly understanding the concept and origins of consiousness. Experience is understanding and we wont get anywhere until science merges personal experience via sensations and seemingly mystical powers and specifics which is the only route to unlocking anything about humanity. This outlook today's big scientific thinkers have is an extremely artifical one, the tools that you use to analyze anything are useful for some things but in this case will only push us away from the actual bridge over the gap that is understanding and interperatting scientific models - experience and understanding. Stay connected stay meditating.

[@FuckTheSimulation]

We are consciousness.

[@HORUSCOOKS]

thanks for posting

[@dianerios880]

Curt I look forward to all of your videos, thank you! 🎉

[@TheoriesofEverything]

You are so kind. Glad you enjoy!

[@AquarianSoulTimeTraveler]

Can't get bit without it.

[@mygirldarby]

So this is where the crazy smart people are! I found my tribe. ❤

[@Paul1239193]

I think anyone (anything) that could simulate our entire universe and us in it would be so advanced (beyond their technological singularity) that they wouldn't be interested in doing it.

[@FMDD168]

Right. Unfalsifiable so not meaningful. The rabbit hole is a waste of anyone's time

[@alecmisra4964]

How can the quantum mechanical world be a digital simulation since quantum reality contains things like uncertainty, non locality and non commutability? Digital algorithms are a by product of this more nuanced state of affairs not vice versa (at least I havent seen any digital simulations of it).

[@liminally-spacious]

The quantum world is not simulated, as that's the computing layer which is distinctly not digital -- it can be thought of as another higher dimension (just one extra). Data structures are never stored inside the simulation they're used in, as that breaks logic (regress problems).

[@SpamMouse]

Dear Curt, you and your co-camera operators deserve an award for keeping this most mobile of presenters in shot and focus for so long, it's almost as if he were seeking to hide and avoid the lens. Thank you. (PS great that you overlay the slides for us, thank you so much, just keep them on screen a little longer please we don't miss anything by being able to read them too.) 👍

[@doloresabernathy9809]

I love this subject but I dislike so many people claiming to know something about which there is zero evidence - namely how consciousness is created.

[@doloresabernathy9809]

Isnt the first simulation hypothesis Plato’s story of the Shadows in the Cave? has it improved since then?

[@MargotDobbie]

As ever outstanding Curt. Thankyou 😊

[@TheoriesofEverything]

Glad you enjoyed it :)

[@louisroth5941]

Curt Jaimungal

[@TheThetruthmaster1]

I saw a robot the other day on youtube it moved like an 80 year old. 🥴👍🏿

[@captain_crunk]

Don't worry, in a couple of months it'll be doing backflips.

[@DEBO5]

@@captain_crunkBoston dynamics already achieved this

[@captain_crunk]

@@DEBO5 yep, and so will the robot the OP is talking about.

[@a-k9161]

My grandfather is 80 but he still bench press 100 kg and he run faster than many people at their forties.

[@mygirldarby]

The important part is that you saw a robot that could walk. That is an incredible human achievement. And if humans can make a robot that can walk slowly, there's no reason why they can't make one that can walk quickly and eventually run.

[@user-if1ly5sn5f]

Heck yeah, this is what I’m talkin about. I want a neuralink so i can have a brain backup/active second brain so i can let go of my current body and fix it or something like switch it off and help it or get a new body. I would like that.

[@Criss_P_Baycon]

👀

[@therealdrawingpathos]

Why the need to use the word simulation? Does that imply there is a more fundamental reality? What does that even mean? The fact is we exist in a quantum mechanical world, yet we are manifesting physically. Technically the quantum flux that spawns us is less "real" than we are, but it's that very uncertainty which provides the rich background, that allows for the probability of our existence, but it's not physical, it's where the physical comes from. What are we supposedly a simulation of? Isn't this enough? This just sounds like physicists complaining that we can't compute qualia. But that's to be expected. The universe is a quantum system and we are a part of that quantum system being expressed, as macroscopic human beings in a mind boggling huge relativistic spacetime. It's a big equation. Individual sensation is predicated by an extremely complicated process, that is dependent on the relative existence of the rest of the universe. It's all contiguous, there is no distance between you and me, only a gradation of reality transitioning between dense nodes of individual consciousness and less dense pan psychic awareness, in a sprawling web of causality. Every subatomic interaction is keeping every other subatomic reaction honest, from the core of your perception to the edges of infinity. The steak already tastes like steak to me, why do we need to calculate the taste of steak?...oh yeah, so we don't have to kill cows to taste it...nevermind, carry on calculating. I don't care if this is real or not, I just wish all the tasty animals didn't have to suffer so much. What a weird simulation we may be in.

[@cybrfriends5089]

"...in all of these, death and taxes awaits us"

[@PatrickODowd702]

I still don't know why Chris Langan isn't even mentioned in these kinds of discussions. They don't even try to demonstrate why he's a pseudo-intellectual, even though that appears to be the implicit message being transmitted. I'd love to see people at least try to publicly challenge his ideas because he's very, very relevant to this talk. He was talking about these things in a very sophisticated way long before Bostrom. And if I'm an idiot for even mentioning his name, I'd like to be taught exactly why I'm so stupid, through means of specifics and not hand-waving or ad hominems.

[@Smilesarethebestlol]

If you really think about it, They can't necessarily attack or use what they don't really understand... They dont understand his work. It's kinda like fishes trying to explain "flight" without understanding aerodynamics while not using a flying fish's (Chris) wings (work) as they don't know what air is. Lol

[@jrwilliams4029]

Langan is a threat to the physics establishment and by extension the “science” community. His work is unfalsifiable that is why he is not invited to these sorts of events to challenge the status quo which does a huge disservice to those seeking for truth.

[@PatrickODowd702]

@@jrwilliams4029 if there’s an actual explanation outside of fear of being mogged, I want to hear it. But if it really is the case the entire intellectual world is just a bunch of cowardly little bitches, then that’s clearly morally wrong and they should be publicly shamed for it. It’s about time people start talking about this in a more confrontational way. The results will, at the very least, be interesting. Curt 100% has responsibility in this as well, although I’m not sure how much discussion he’s generating about the CTMU behind the scenes.

[@ablatt89]

Many people have addressed specifics of his claims, shown logical inconsistencies and incorrect interpretations of physics concepts, and he doesn't seem to want to bother to address them. Simply saying "I have a super high IQ, here's my theory of everything" doesn't suddenly make the man correct. As an example, he says tendrils exist, they didn't need to be created because they created themself (well that's still a form of generation), and then jumps to the conclusion that this is true and the explanation of consciousness and all physicists are wrong. How does that make any sense?

[@PatrickODowd702]

@@ablatt89 I don’t know what you mean by “tendrils.” I googled it and it looks like they’re a geometric phenomenon that appear in nature. They look like they exist to me. Onto the next part: self-generation is key to the CTMU, so if you want to challenge the idea of self-generation, you should challenge CTMU metaphysics at a more general level instead of focusing on tendrils. That means talking about which parts of his theory are incorrect-attributive duality, conspansion, syndiffeonesis, or something else. You appear to be succumbing to groupthink because what you’re saying can be reduced to “people have disagreed” and acting dumbfounded at the how apparently incomprehensible the theory is. You have read the papers, right?

[@dontfollowthinkforyourself]

The only thing that they havent found is qualia the feeling of being. If the body and mind was a car then consciousness would be the gasolin. They trying to find were the gasolin comes from because it looks like its produce on the brain or engine if the ref is car. By researching the prosess you can find how the car works even on the nanoscale so they try to control the car by incerting all kinds of technology that eventually the computer drives and they call self driving car. The problem is we are not a car and we dont need to be remote controlled cyborgs so we loose our autonomi. The crazy ideology fanatic psykopaths thought it was ok to link the body and mind without concent calling it vaccines. Sorry to say the TRUTH your thoughts and emotions comes from the cloud now and the going full war time.

[@theomnisthour6400]

You'll have a hard time attracting experienced souls to empower your slave armies, but I'm sure the oppressive and cognitive dissonant indoctrination you give them will raise some freedom-loving messiahs. I wouldn't want to be a greedy irresponsible creator of inorganic soul vehicles. That didn't end well the first time it was tried, though it was an important lesson in the building of a better version of God

[@billschwandt1]

Trees that fall in the forest do indeed make sounds. 2+2=4

[@backwardthoughts1022]

thats called naive realism. it doesnt exist.

[@hericiumcoralloides5025]

They produce sound in the physical sense of vibrations through materials. The qualitative experience of sound is quite different from it's physical source though.

[@backwardthoughts1022]

@@hericiumcoralloides5025 vibrations are not sounds. vibrations are not hot. vibrations are not blue. etc. no sounds exist outside the skull, including anywhere near trees.

[@lefthookouchmcarm4520]

People can hallucinate sounds. You can induce audible hallucinations in people using simple pavlovian conditioning. Chalmers is like a religionist saying ”there is something more to it" regarding biology, precisely because the science hasn't been able to explain biogenesis. Yes Chalmers, we know neuroscience hasn't yet been able to explain consciousness yet just like biology hasn't been able to explain biogenesis. Congratulations on making a career out of it. It's literal bottom feeding.

[@lefthookouchmcarm4520]

Humans can hallucinate sounds in the absence of external stimuli. It's also true that externally, vibrations hit the cochlea and it produces various nerve impulses depending on the vibratory motions. This is our biological sensors at work transmitting impulses to the brain so that we may hallucinate a sound as well. We can't possibly be "hearing" the sounds with any particular part of the brain as it needs additional external sensors to convert vibrations into nerve impulses. There just isn't a "thing" that hears. It's a complex chain of events. We hallucinate reality in various ways depending on how well our sensors work. A deaf person may have an error in their auditory pipeline: underdeveloped cochlea, auditory nerve issues, or auditory cortex maladies. So the question goes far beyond a tree in a forest... The real question is "who is it that is hearing"? The answer is nobody. You can't hear without the right brain or the right nerves or the right ear bones, or the right sounds, or the universe the sounds exist in. All of this is 100% out of your control. Can a tree that falls in the forest produce shockwaves that other matter registers? Of course. It's nobody. Just like you. 😂

[@missh1774]

Is "simulation" also the safe word for the learning that happens with non living beings, non modern human beings or non existing creatures? ... Eg. cultural guardian animals and the learning gained in the interaction is now called "simulation" ? ... Lame. It doesn't deserve to be grouped with chit zombies.

[@BC-lf4om]

The first 10 minutes were all i could endure, it seemed like a bunch of simulated horse manure .

[@backwardthoughts1022]

these folks are really running out of crap to talk about, since they don't know anything or even how to begin approaching it.

[@anatolwegner9096]

This one is strong with the BS

[@agenticmark]

that mannequin bot is annoying as hell

[@anatolwegner9096]

The dumbest idea in the history of human thought

[@hugegnarlyeyeball]

It is all pretty ridiculous.

[@RiotSociety666]

Another frog 😂😂😂

[@troywhite6039]

His pacing around is annoying as can be. Seems like he is on some kind if drug.

[@marculmer2527]

What happened to u Curt? This channel has gone downhill for a few months! Unsubribed!

[@TheoriesofEverything]

How so? Do you mind expanding ? Thank you so much . - Curt

[@marculmer2527]

@@TheoriesofEverything Not at all! Keep our mind open and od not exclude anithing! Have u come to the conclusion that UAPs are not worth making a podcast on?

[@marculmer2527]

​@@TheoriesofEverything Curt, I really like you a lot and our podcast is a gem. My comment was not supposed to hurt ou in any way. I was in a very bad mood when I wrote my comment. I apologize if it was insulting. your podcast had the most in-depth information in the UAP field. I do not understand why your are moving away from it. Greetings from Germany and thanks for every podcast!

[@MargotDobbie]

​@@marculmer2527Hey 😊 I believe Curt has mentioned a couple of times that Toe isn't exclusively about UAPs.

[@mygirldarby]

​@marculmer2527 that was kind of you to apologize. Germans are socialized well, I've found. That wasn't always true, but they've learned from their mistakes, unlike many. I'm half German, but I've never been to Germany. I would love to visit someday. My ancestors were from Hamburg and the formerly German (now France) area of Alsaice-Lorraine.

[@bricktop7352]

This guy kinda sucks at talking about ideas.

[@CrazyAssDrumma]

I prefer wolfram tbh