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 forums@fqxi.org 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


Previous Contests

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

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.
read/discusswinners

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

read/discusswinners

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
read/discusswinners

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

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
read/discusswinners

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
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
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

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...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Steve Dufourny: "after all like Borh has made,this universe and its spheres for me are like..." in Alternative Models of...

Steve Dufourny: "Thanks for sharing Georgina,it is nice.Friendly" in Alternative Models of...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Lorraine Ford: "With the “A.I. Feynman” software, Silviu-Marian Udrescu and Max Tegmark..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Georgina Woodward: "Coin toss co-state potentials: With the measurement protocol decided, in..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "If we correlate with the consciousness, can we consider that all is..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

Steve Dufourny: "Hi Ian Durham, Maybe still for the rankings and the links with this..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.


FQXi FORUM
October 22, 2019

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.