Search FQXi

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest

Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

Previous Contests

Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest
December 24, 2019 - April 24, 2020
Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American


How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help

Sylvain Poirier: on 4/13/15 at 8:36am UTC, wrote Dear Jeremy, I see that you have the bad luck of having got initially bad...

Joe Fisher: on 4/8/15 at 15:46pm UTC, wrote Dear Jeremy, I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was...

Jeremy Collins: on 3/10/15 at 14:03pm UTC, wrote Essay Abstract Brains are conscious because of the computations...


Marcel-Marie LeBel: "Georgina, There is no instantaneity along the rod or within the coffee. It..." in The Nature of Time

Stefan Weckbach: "Hi Lorraine, thanks for your explanations. I think I now better..." in The Present State of...

Georgina Woodward: "Consider ice cream in hot coffee. They stay together, 'in time', as..." in The Nature of Time

Mykel Waggoner: "This is a link to a paper I wrote, as it explains how Quantum Entanglement..." in Alternative Models of...

Lorraine Ford: "Hi Stefan, Replying to your last couple of posts, this is the way I would..." in The Present State of...

Robert McEachern: ""There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in..." in Undecidability,...

Georgina Woodward: "Max? Why?" in Anatomy of spacetime and...

Steve Agnew: "Mueller opens his essay with... "As the argument goes, there are truths..." in Undecidability,...

click titles to read articles

The Quantum Clock-Maker Investigating COVID-19, Causality, and the Trouble with AI
Sally Shrapnel, a quantum physicist and medical practitioner, on her experiments into cause-and-effect that could help us understand time’s arrow—and build better healthcare algorithms.

Connect the Quantum Dots for a New Kind of Fuel
'Artificial atoms' allow physicists to manipulate individual electrons—and could help to reduce energy wastage in electronic devices.

Can Choices Curve Spacetime?
Two teams are developing ways to detect quantum-gravitational effects in the lab.

The Quantum Engine That Simultaneously Heats and Cools
Tiny device could help boost quantum electronics.

The Quantum Refrigerator
A tiny cooling device could help rewrite the thermodynamic rule book for quantum machines.

September 21, 2021

CATEGORY: Trick or Truth Essay Contest (2015) [back]
TOPIC: Can mathematical structures be conscious? by Jeremy Charles Collins [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Jeremy Charles Collins wrote on Mar. 10, 2015 @ 14:03 GMT
Essay Abstract

Brains are conscious because of the computations that they perform, and if a computer is capable of simulating a brain (and the world it interacts with), it would therefore be conscious as well. Max Tegmark goes one step further in suggesting that not even a computer is needed to create a conscious being: a computer simulation can be represented as a static four-dimensional object, and this object arguably exists as a mathematical structure even if the computer were to disappear altogether. By this argument, there are mathematical structures describing computer simulations contain conscious entities, and feel as real to their inhabitants as simulated universes or ‘real’ universes such as our own. If this is true, then there are a vast number of mathematically possible universes with the same claim to physical existence as our own; and the existence of our universe becomes indistinguishable from the existence of the mathematical structure that describes our universe, and hence our universe is effectively just a mathematical structure. This essay focuses on the critical part of Tegmark’s argument: can mathematical objects, as opposed to computer simulations, be conscious? What follows is a review of the critical part of Tegmark’s account, and then some possible arguments against it. Despite some possible holes in the argument, there is one part of it that is undeniable, which is that formal systems can describe (and even be, at least while they are being calculated) universes as complex and worth exploring as our own. Mathematical objects can be identical to conscious beings in all of their essential details, even if they lack some final spark of subjective consciousness that comes from being simulated. The profound implications of this fact transcend the possibly unknowable question of whether entities in these mathematical objects are really conscious or not.

Author Bio

I am a PhD student in linguistics at Radboud University, Nijmegen and the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share

Joe Fisher wrote on Apr. 8, 2015 @ 15:46 GMT
Dear Jeremy,

I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.

All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Sylvain Poirier wrote on Apr. 13, 2015 @ 08:36 GMT
Dear Jeremy,

I see that you have the bad luck of having got initially bad ratings, which diverts readers from your essay, in contrast with the success of the essay by Marc Séguin which presents quite similar ideas to yours. I think you will be interested to read his essay, and invite him to read yours.

As for me I don't believe that mathematical structures can be conscious, however I see interest in the argument, as a proof by absurdity against materialism : if materialism was true in its claim that consciousness is a mere emergent physical process, then consciousness would be mere computation, and thus also a mere mathematical system, which I consider to be absurd. In contrast to this I see consciousness as fundamental, not mathematical and not emergent from physics. I explained this in details in my essay A Mind/Mathematics Dualistic Foundation of Physical Reality. Maybe you will be interested with my works (including my description of the many-worlds interpretation) like Marc was.

I also added your essay to my list of interesting essays in my review.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.