Whatever reality is, it's not what you see.
What you see is just an adaptive fiction.
The following is a conversation with Donald Hoffman,
professor of cognitive sciences at UC Irvine,
focusing his research on evolutionary psychology,
visual perception, and consciousness.
He's the author of over 120 scientific papers
on these topics and his most recent book titled
The Case Against Reality,
Why Evolution Hit the Truth from Our Eyes.
I think some of the most interesting ideas in this world,
like those of Donald Hoffman's attempt
to shake the foundation of our understanding of reality,
and thus, they take a long time to internalize deeply.
So proceed with caution.
Questioning the fabric of reality
can lead you to either madness or the truth.
And the funny thing is, you won't know which is which.
This is the Lex Friedman podcast.
To support it, please check out our sponsors
in the description.
And now, dear friends, here's Donald Hoffman.
In your book, The Case Against Reality,
Why Evolution Hit the Truth from Our Eyes,
you make the bold claim that the world we see
with our eyes is not real.
It's not even an abstraction of objective reality.
It is completely detached from objective reality.
Can you explain this idea?
Right, so this is a theorem
from evolution of a natural selection.
So the technical question that I and my team asked was,
what is the probability that natural selection
would shape sensory systems
to see true properties of objective reality?
And to our surprise, we found that the answer
is precisely zero, except for one kind of structure
that we can go into if you want to.
But for any generic structure
that you might think the world might have,
a total order, a topology metric,
the probability is precisely zero
that natural selection would shape any sensory system
of any organism to see any aspect of objective reality.
So in that sense, what we're seeing is
what we need to see to stay alive long enough to reproduce.
So in other words, we're seeing what we need
to guide adaptive behavior, full stop.
So the evolutionary process,
the process that took us from the origin of life on earth
to the humans that we are today,
that process does not maximize for truth,
it maximizes for fitness, as you say, fitness beats truth.
And fitness does not have to be connected to truth
is the claim, and that's where you have an approach
towards zero of probability
that we have evolved human cognition, human consciousness,
whatever it is, the magic that makes our mind work,
evolved not for its ability to see the truth of reality,
but its ability to survive in the environment.
That's exactly right.
So most of us intuitively think that surely
the way that evolution will make our senses more fit
is to make them tell us more truths,
or at least the truths we need to know
about objective reality, the truths we need in our niche.
That's the standard view, and it was the view I took.
I mean, that's sort of what we're taught,
or just even assume, it's just sort of like
the intelligent assumption that we would all make.
But we don't have to just wave our hands.
Evolution of a natural selection
is a mathematically precise theory.
John Maynard Smith in the 70s
created evolutionary game theory,
and we have evolutionary graph theory,
and even genetic algorithms that we can use to study this.
And so we don't have to wave our hands.
It's a matter of theorem and proof,
and or simulation before you get the theorems and proofs.
And a couple of graduate students of mine,
Justin Mark and Brian Marion,
did some wonderful simulations that tipped me off
that there was something going on here.
And then I went to a mathematician,
Chaitan Prakash and Manish Singh,
and some other friends of mine, Chris Fields.
But Chaitan was the real mathematician behind all this,
and he's proved several theorems
that uniformly indicate that with one exception,
which has to do with probability measures,
there's no, the probability is zero.
The reason there's an exception for probability measures,
so-called sigma algebras or sigma additive classes,
is that for any scientific theory,
there is the assumption that needs to be made
that the whatever structure,
the whatever probabilistic structure the world may have,
is not unrelated to the probabilistic structure
of our perceptions.
If they were completely unrelated,
then no science would be possible.
So this is technically the map from reality to our senses
has to be a so-called measurable map,
has to preserve sigma algebras.
But that means it could be infinite to one,
and it could collapse all sorts of event information.
But other than that,
there's no requirement in standard evolutionary theory
for fitness payoff functions, for example,
to preserve any specific structures of objective reality.
So you can ask the technical question.
This is one of the avenues we took.
If you look at all the fitness payoffs
from whatever world structure you might want to imagine,
so a world with, say, a total order on it.
So it's got n states and they're totally ordered.
And then you can have a set of maps from that world
into a set of payoffs, say from zero to 1,000
or whatever you want your payoffs to be.
And you can just literally count all the payoff functions.
Just do the combinatorics and count them.
And then you can ask a precise question.
How many of those payoff functions
preserve the total order?
If that's what you're looking for.
Or how many preserve the topology?
And you just count them and divide.
So the number that are homomorphisms
versus the total number and then take the limit
as the number of states in the world
and the number of payoff values goes very large.
And when you do that, you get zero every time.
Okay, there's a million things to ask here,
but first of all, just in case people are not familiar
with your work, let's sort of linger
on the big, bold statement here,
which is the thing we see with our eyes
is not some kind of limited window into reality.
It is completely detached from reality,
likely completely detached from reality.
You're saying 100% likely.
Okay, so none of this is real
in the way we think is real.
In the way we have this intuition,
there's like this table is some kind of abstraction,
but underneath it all, there's atoms.
And there's an entire century of physics
that describes the functioning of those atoms
and the quarks that make them up.
There's many Nobel prizes about particles and fields
and all that kind of stuff that slowly builds up
to something that's perceivable to us,
both with our eyes, with our different senses
as this table.
Then there's also ideas of chemistry
that overlays of abstraction from DNA to embryos,
the cells that make the human body.
So all of that is not real.
It's a real experience
and it's a real adaptive set of perceptions.
So it's an adaptive set of perceptions, full stop.
We want to think that the perceptions are real.
So their perceptions are real as perceptions,
we are having our perceptions,
but we've assumed that there's a pretty tight relationship
between our perceptions and reality.
If I look up and see the moon,
then there is something that exists in space and time
that matches what I perceive.
And all I'm saying is that if you take evolution
by natural selection seriously, then that is precluded.
Our perceptions are there,
they're there to guide adaptive behavior, full stop.
They're not there to show you the truth.
In fact, the way I think about it
is they're there to hide the truth
because the truth is too complicated.
It's just like if you're trying to use your laptop
to write an email, right?
What you're doing is toggling voltages in the computer,
but good luck trying to do it that way.
The reason why we have a user interface
is because we don't want to know that quote unquote truth,
the diodes and resistors and all that terrible hardware.
If you had to know all that truth,
it would, your friends wouldn't hear from you.
So what evolution gave us was perceptions
that guide adaptive behavior.
And part of that process, it turns out,
means hiding the truth and giving you eye candy.
So what's the difference between hiding the truth
and forming abstractions,
layers upon layers of abstractions
over these, over low level voltages and transistors
and chips and programming languages from assembly
to Python that then leads you to be able
to have an interface like Chrome where you open up
another set of JavaScript and HTML programming languages
that lead you to have a graphical user interface
on which you can then send your friends an email.
Is that completely detached from the zeros and ones
that are firing away inside the computer?
It's not.
Of course, when I talk about the user interface
on your desktop, there's this whole sophisticated
backstory to it, right?
That the hardware and the software
that's allowing that to happen.
Evolution doesn't tell us the backstory, right?
So the theory of evolution is not going to be adequate
to tell you what is that backstory.
It's gonna say that whatever reality is,
and that's the interesting thing,
it says whatever reality is, you don't see it.
You see a user interface, but it doesn't tell you
what that user interface is, how it's built, right?
Now, we can try to look at certain aspects of the interface,
but already we're gonna look at that and go,
okay, before I would look at neurons
and I was assuming that I was seeing something
that was at least partially true.
And now I'm realizing that it could be like looking
at the pixels on my desktop or icons on my desktop,
and good luck going from that to the data structures
and then the voltages, and I mean, good luck.
There's just no way.
So what's interesting about this is that our scientific
theories are precise enough and rigorous enough
to tell us certain limits, and even limits
of the theories themselves, but they're not going
to tell us what the next move is,
and that's where scientific creativity comes in.
So the stuff that I'm saying here, for example,
is not alien to physicists.
The physicists are saying precisely the same thing,
that space time is doomed.
We've assumed that space time is fundamental,
that we've assumed that for several centuries,
and it's been very useful.
So all the things that you were mentioning,
the particles and all the work that's been done,
that's all been done in space time,
but now physicists are saying space time is doomed.
There's no such thing as space time fundamentally
in the laws of physics.
And that comes actually out of gravity together
with quantum field theory, which just comes right out of it.
It's a theorem of those two theories put together.
But it doesn't tell you what's behind it.
So the physicists know that their best theories,
Einstein's gravity and quantum field theory put together,
entail that space time cannot be fundamental,
and therefore particles in space time cannot be fundamental.
They're just irreducible representations
of the symmetries of space time.
That's what they are.
So we have, so space time, so we put the two together.
We put together what the physicists are discovering,
and we can talk about how they do that.
And then we, the new discoveries
from evolution of a natural selection,
both of these discoveries are really in the last 20 years.
And what both are saying is space time
has had a good ride.
It's been very useful.
Reductionism has been useful, but it's over.
And it's time for us to go beyond.
When you say space time is doomed,
is it the space, is it the time,
is it the very hard-coded specification of four dimensions?
Or are you specifically referring to the kind
of perceptual domain that humans operate in,
which is space time?
You think like there's just 3D, like our world
is three-dimensional, and time progresses forward.
Therefore, three dimensions plus one, 4D.
What exactly do you mean by space time?
What do you mean by space time is doomed?
Great, great.
So this is, by the way, not my quote.
This is from, for example, Nima Arkani-Hamed
at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton.
Ed Whitten, also there.
David Gross, Nobel Prize winner.
So this is not just something that cognitive scientists,
this is what the physicists were saying.
Yeah, the physicists, they're space time skeptics.
Yeah, they're saying that, and I can say exactly why
they think it's doomed, but what they're saying is that,
because your question was, what aspect of space time,
what are we talking about here?
It's both space and time.
They're union into space time as a Einstein's theory.
That's doomed.
And they're basically saying that
even quantum theory, this is Nima Arkani-Hamed especially,
so Hilbert spaces will not be fundamental either.
So that the notion of Hilbert space,
which is really critical to quantum field theory,
quantum information theory, that's not going to figure
in the fundamental new laws of physics.
So what they're looking for is some new mathematical
structures beyond space time, beyond Einstein's
four-dimensional space time, or supersymmetric version,
geometric algebra, signature, two comma four, kind of.
There are different ways that you can represent it,
but they're finding new structures,
and by the way, they're succeeding now.
They're finding, they found something called
the amplitude-hedron, this is Nima and his colleagues,
the cosmological polytope.
These are, so there are these like polytopes,
these polyhedra in multi-dimensions,
generalizations of simplices,
that are coding for, for example,
the scattering amplitudes of processes
in the Large Hadron Collider and other colliders.
So they're finding that if they let go of space time,
completely, they're finding new ways
of computing these scattering amplitudes
that turn literally billions of terms into one term.
When you do it in space and time,
because it's the wrong framework,
it's just a user interface,
that's not from the evolutionary point of view,
it's just user interface,
it's not a deep insight into the nature of reality.
So it's missing deep symmetry,
it's something called a dual conformal symmetry,
which turns out to be true of the scattering data,
but you can't see it in space time,
and it's making the computations way too complicated
because you're trying to compute all the loops
and Feynman diagrams and all the Feynman integrals.
So see the Feynman approach to the scattering amplitudes
is trying to enforce two critical properties of space time,
locality and uniterity.
And so by, when you enforce those,
you get all these loops and multiple different levels of loops
and for each of those,
you have to add new terms to your computation.
But when you do it outside of space time,
you don't have the notion of uniterity,
you don't have the notion of locality,
you have something deeper
and it's capturing some symmetries
that are actually true of the data.
And, but then when you look at the geometry
of the facets of these polytopes,
then certain of them will code for uniterity
and locality.
So it actually comes out of the structure
of these deep polytopes.
So what we're finding is there's this whole new world,
now beyond space time,
that is making explicit symmetries
that are true of the data that cannot be seen in space time
and that is turning the computations from billions of terms
to one or two or a handful of terms.
So we're getting insights into symmetries
and all of a sudden the math is becoming simple
because we're not doing something silly,
we're not adding up all these loops in space time,
we're doing something far deeper.
But they don't know what this world is about.
Also, you know, they're in an interesting position
where we know that space time is doomed
and I should probably tell you why it's doomed
and what they're saying about why it's doomed.
But they need a flashlight to look beyond space time.
What flashlight are we gonna use
to look into the dark beyond space time?
Because Einstein's theory and quantum theory
can't tell us what's beyond them.
All they can do is tell us that when you put us together,
space time is doomed at 10 to the minus 33 centimeters,
10 to the minus 43 seconds.
Beyond that, space time doesn't even make sense.
It just has no operational definition.
So, but it doesn't tell you what's beyond.
And so they're just looking for deep structures
like guessing is really fun.
So these really brilliant guys, generic,
brilliant men and women who are doing this work, physicists,
are making guesses about these structures, informed guesses
because they're trying to ask,
well, okay, what deeper structure could give us
the stuff that we're seeing in space time,
but without certain commitments
that we have to make in space time, like locality.
So they make these brilliant guesses
and of course, most of the time you're gonna be wrong.
But once you get one or two, that start to pay off.
And then you get some lucky breaks.
So they got a lucky break back in 1986.
Couple of mathematicians named Park and Taylor
took the scattering amplitude for two gluons
coming in at high energy and four gluons
going out at low energy.
So that kind of scattering thing.
So apparently for people who are into this,
that's sort of something that happens so often
you need to be able to find it and get rid of those
because you already know about that and need to,
so you needed to compute them.
It was billions of terms and they couldn't do it
even though for the supercomputers couldn't do that
for the many billions or millions of times per second
they needed to do it.
So they bagged, the experimentals bagged the theorists
and please can you, you got it.
And so Park and Taylor took the billions of terms,
hundreds of pages and miraculously turned it into nine.
And then a little bit later they guessed one term expression
that turned out to be equivalent.
So billions of terms reduced to one term
that's so-called famous Park-Taylor formula, 1986.
And that was like, okay, where did that come from?
What, this is a pointer into a deep realm
beyond space and time, but no one,
I mean, what can you do with it?
And they thought maybe it was a one-off,
but then other formulas started coming up
and then eventually Neymar, Connie,
Hamad and his team found this thing called the Amplituhedron
which really sort of captures the whole,
a big part of the whole ball of wax.
I'm sure they would say, no, there's plenty more to do.
So I won't say they did it all by any means.
They're looking at the cosmological polytope as well.
So what's remarkable to me is that two pillars
of modern science, quantum field theory with gravity
on the one hand and evolution by natural selection
on the other.
Just in the last 20 years have very clearly said
space-time has had a good run.
Reductionism has been a fantastic methodology.
So we had a great ontology of space-time,
a great methodology of productionism.
Now it's time for a new trick.
But now you need to go deeper and show,
but by the way, this doesn't mean we throw away
everything we've done, not by a long shot.
Every new idea that we come up with beyond space-time
must project precisely into space-time
and it better give us back everything
that we know and love in space-time or generalizations.
Or it's not gonna be taken seriously
and it shouldn't be.
So we have a strong constraint
on whatever we're going to do beyond space-time.
It needs to project into space-time.
And whatever this deeper theory is,
it may not itself have evolution by natural selection.
This may not be part of this deeper realm.
But when we take whatever that thing is beyond space-time
and project it into space-time,
it has to look like evolution by natural selection.
Or it's wrong.
So that's a strong constraint on this work.
So even the evolution by natural selection
and quantum field theory could be interfaces
into something that doesn't look anything like,
like you mentioned,
I mean, it's interesting to think that evolution
might be a very crappy interface
into something which deeper.
That's right.
They're both telling us that the framework
that you've had can only go so far
and it has to stop.
And there's something beyond.
And that framework, the very framework
that is space and time itself.
Now, of course, evolution by natural selection
is not telling us about like Einstein's relativistic
space-time.
So that was another question you asked a little bit earlier.
It's telling us more about our perceptual space and time
which we have used as the basis
for creating first a Newtonian space versus time
as a mathematical extension of our perceptions.
And then Einstein then took that
and extended it even further.
So the relationship between what evolution is telling us
and what the physicists are telling us is that,
in some sense, Newton and Einstein space-time
are formulated as sort of rigorous extensions
of our perceptual space, making it mathematically rigorous
and laying out the symmetries that they find there.
So that's sort of the relationship between them.
So it's the perceptual space-time
that evolution is telling us is just a user interface,
effectively.
And then the physicists are finding
that even the mathematical extension of that
into the Einsteinian formulation has to be as well,
not the final story, there's something deeper.
So let me ask you about reductionism and interfaces.
As we march forward from Newtonian physics
to quantum mechanics, these are all in your view interfaces.
Are we getting closer to objective reality?
How do we know if these interfaces
in the process of science,
the reason we like those interfaces
is because they're predictive of some aspects,
strongly predictive about some aspects of our reality.
Is that completely deviating from our understanding
of that reality?
Or is it helping us get closer and closer and closer?
Well, of course, one critical constraint
on all of our theories is that they are empirically tested
and pass the experiments that we have for them.
So no one's arguing against experiments being important
and wanting to test all of our current theories
and any new theories on that.
So that's all there.
But we have good reason to believe
that science will never get a theory of everything.
Everything, everything.
Everything, everything, right,
a final theory of everything, right?
I think that my own take is for what it's worth
is that Gertl's incompleteness theorem
sort of points us in that direction,
that even with mathematics,
any finite axiomatization that's sophisticated enough
to be able to do arithmetic,
it's easy to show that there'll be statements that are true
that can't be proven,
can't be deduced from within that framework.
And if you add the new statements to your axioms,
then there'll be always new statements that are true,
but can't be proven with a new axiom system.
And the best scientific theories in physics, for example,
and also now evolution are mathematical.
So our theories are gonna be,
they're gonna have their own assumptions
and they'll be mathematically precise.
And there'll be theories,
perhaps of everything except those assumptions,
because assumptions are,
we say, please grant me these assumptions.
If you grant me these assumptions,
then I can explain this other stuff.
But so you have the assumptions that are like miracles
as far as the theory is concerned, they're not explained.
They're the starting points for explanation.
And then you have the mathematical structure
of the theory itself,
which will have the girdle limits.
And so my take is that reality, whatever it is,
is always going to transcend any conceptual theory
that we can come up with.
There's always gonna be mystery at the edges.
Right.
Contradictions and all that kind of stuff.
Okay, and truths.
So there's this idea that is brought up
in the financial space of settlement, of transactions.
It's often talked about in cryptocurrency especially.
So you could do, money, cash is not connected to anything.
It used to be connected to gold, to physical reality,
but then you can use money to exchange value, transact.
So when it was on the gold standard,
the money would represent some stable component of reality.
Isn't it more effective to avoid things
like hyperinflation if we generalize that idea?
Isn't it better to connect your,
whatever we humans are doing
in the social interaction space with each other.
Isn't it better from an evolutionary perspective
to connect it to some degree to reality?
So that the transactions are settled
with something that's universal,
as opposed to us constantly operating
in something that's a complete illusion.
Isn't it easy to hyperinflate that?
Like where you really deviate very, very far away
from the underlying reality
or do you not never get in trouble for this?
Can you just completely drift far, far away
from the underlying reality and never get in trouble?
That's a great question.
On the financial side,
there's two levels at least that we could take your question.
One is strictly evolutionary psychology
of financial systems.
And that's pretty interesting.
And there the decentralized idea,
the DeFi kind of idea in cryptocurrencies
may make good sense
from just an evolutionary psychology point of view.
Having human nature being what it is,
putting a lot of faith in a few central controllers
depends a lot on the veracity of those
and the trustworthiness of those few central controllers.
And we have ample evidence time and again
that's often betrayed.
So it makes good evolutionary sense, I would say,
to have a decentralized,
I mean, democracy is a step in that direction, right?
We don't have a monarch now telling us what to do.
We decentralize things, right?
Because if you have Marcus Aurelio says you're emperor,
you're great.
If you have Nero, it's not so great.
And so we don't want that.
So democracy is a step in that direction.
But I think the DeFi thing is an even bigger step
and is going to even make the democratization even greater.
So that's one level of...
Also the fact that power corrupts
and absolute power corrupts absolutely
is also a consequence of evolution.
That's also a feature, I think, right?
You can argue from the long span of living organisms,
it's nice for power to corrupt for you to...
So mad men and women throughout history
might be useful to teach us a lesson.
We can learn from our negative example, right?
Exactly.
Right, right, right.
Power does corrupt and I think that you can think about that
again from an evolutionary point of view.
But I think that your question was a little deeper.
When that was, does the evolutionary interface idea
sort of unhinge science from some kind of
important test for the theories, right?
We don't want, it doesn't mean that anything goes
in scientific theory, but there's no...
If we don't see the truth is there no way
to tether our theories and test them.
And I think there's no problem there.
We can only test things in terms of what we can measure
with our senses in space and time.
So we're going to have to continue to do experiments
and but we're going to re...
We're going to understand a little bit differently
what those experiments are.
We had thought that when we see a pointer
on some machine in an experiment
that the machine exists, the pointer exists
and the values exist even when no one is looking at them
and that they're an objective truth.
And our best theories are telling us no.
The pointers, pointers are just pointers
and that's what you have to rely on
for making your judgments.
But that even the pointers themselves
are not the objective reality.
So, and I think Gertl is telling us that
not that anything goes, but as you develop new axiom systems
you will find out what goes within that axiom system
and what testable predictions you can make.
So I don't think we're untethered.
We continue to do experiments.
What I think we won't have that we want
is a conceptual understanding
that gives us a theory of everything
that's final and complete.
I think that this is, to put it another way,
this is job security for scientists.
Our job will never be done,
it's job security for neuroscience.
Because before we thought that when we looked in the brain
we saw neurons and neural networks
and action potentials and synapses and so forth
and that was it, that was the reality.
Now we have to reverse engineer that.
We have to say what is beyond space time?
What is going on?
What is a dynamical system beyond space time?
That when we project it into Einstein space time
gives us things that look like neurons
and neural networks and synapses.
So we have to reverse engineer it
so there's going to be lots more work for neuroscience.
It's going to be far more complicated
and difficult and challenging.
But that's wonderful, that's what we need to do.
We thought neurons exist when they are perceived
and they don't.
In the same way that if I show you,
when I say they don't exist, I should be very, very concrete.
If I draw on a piece of paper,
a little sketch of something that is called the necker cube.
It's just a little line drawing of a cube,
right, it's on a flat piece of paper.
If I execute it well, and I show it to you,
you'll see a 3D cube and you'll see it flip.
Sometimes you'll see one face in front,
sometimes you'll see the other face in front.
But I've asked you, which face is in front
when you don't look?
The answer is, well, neither face is in front
because there's no cube.
There's just a flat piece of paper.
So when you look at the piece of paper,
you perceptually create the cube.
And when you look at it,
then you fix one face to be in front
and one face to be in front.
So that's what I mean when I say it doesn't exist.
Space time itself is like the cube.
It's a data structure that your sensory systems construct,
whatever your sensory systems mean now,
because we now have to even take that for granted.
But there are perceptions that you construct on the fly
and their data structures in the computer science sense.
And you garbage collect them when you don't need them.
So you create them and garbage collect them.
But is it possible that it's mapped well
in some concrete predictable way to objective reality?
The sheet of paper, the two-dimensional space,
or we can talk about space time,
maps in some way that we maybe don't yet understand,
but we'll one day understand what that mapping is,
but it maps reliably.
It is tethered in that way.
Well, yes, and so the new theories
that the physicists are finding beyond space time
have that kind of tethering.
So they show precisely how you start
with an amplitude Hadron
and how you project this high-dimensional structure
into the four dimensions of space time.
So there's a precise procedure that relates the two.
And they're doing the same thing
with the cosmological polytopes.
So they're the ones that are making the most, you know,
concrete and fun advances going beyond space time.
And there, they're tethering it, right?
They say this is precisely the mathematical projection
from this deeper structure into space time.
One thing I'll say about as a non-physicist,
what I find interesting is that they're finding just geometry,
but there's no notion of dynamics.
Right now, they're just finding
these static geometric structures, which is impressive.
So I'm not putting them down.
This is what they're doing is unbelievably complicated
and brilliant and adventurous, all those things.
And beautiful, from a human aesthetic perspective,
because geometry is beautiful.
It's absolutely.
And they're finding symmetries that are true of the data
that can't be seen in space time.
But I'm looking for a theory beyond space time
that's a dynamical theory.
I would love to find, and we can talk about that
at some point, a theory of consciousness
in which the dynamics of consciousness itself
will give rise to the geometry
that the physicists are finding beyond space time.
If we can do that, then we'd have a completely different way
of looking at how consciousness is related
to what we call the brain or the physical world
more generally, right?
Right now, all of my brilliant colleagues,
99% of them are trying to,
they're assuming space time is fundamental.
They're assuming that particles are fundamental.
Quarks, gluons, leptons and so forth.
Elements, atoms and so forth are fundamental.
And that therefore neurons and brains
are part of objective reality.
And that somehow when you get matter that's complicated enough,
it will somehow generate conscious experiences
by its functional properties.
Or if you're panpsychist, maybe you,
in addition to the physical properties of particles,
you add consciousness property as well.
And then you combine these physical
and conscious properties to get more complicated ones.
But they're all doing it within space time.
All of the work that's being done unconsciousness
and its relationship to the brain
is all assumed something that our best theories
are telling us is doomed, space time.
Why does that particular assumption bother you the most?
So you bring up space time.
I mean, that's just one useful interface
we've used for a long time.
Surely there's other interfaces.
Is space time just one of the big ones
that you, to build up people's intuition
about the fact that they do assume a lot of things strongly?
Or is it in fact the fundamental flaw
in the way we see the world?
Well, everything else that we think we know
are things in space time.
Sure.
So when you say space time is doomed,
this is a shot to the heart of the whole framework,
the whole conceptual framework that we've had in science.
Not to the scientific method,
but to the fundamental ontology
and also the fundamental methodology,
the ontology of space time and its contents
and the methodology of reductionism,
which is that as we go to smaller scales in space time,
we will find more and more fundamental laws.
And that's been very useful
for space and time for centuries,
reductionism for centuries,
but now we realized that that's over.
Reductionism is in fact dead as is space time.
What exactly is reductionism?
What is the process of reductionism that is different
than some of the physicists that you mentioned
that are trying to let go of the assumption of space time?
What can be on?
Isn't that still trying to come up with a simple model
that explains this whole thing?
Isn't it still reducing?
It's a wonderful question
because it really helps to clarify two different notions,
which is scientific explanation on the one hand
and a particular kind of scientific explanation
on the other, which is the reductionist.
So the reductionist explanation is saying,
I will start with things that are smaller in space time
and therefore more fundamental,
where the laws are more fundamental.
So we go to just smaller and smaller scales.
Whereas in science, more generally,
we just say like when Einstein
did the special theory of relativity,
he's saying, let me have a couple of postulates.
I will assume that the speed of light is universal
for all observers in uniform motion
and that the laws of physics,
so if you're for uniform motion are,
that's not a reductionist.
Those are saying, grant me these assumptions.
I can build this entire concept of space time out of it.
It's not a reductionist thing.
You're not going to smaller and smaller scales of space.
You're coming up with these deep, deep principles.
Same thing with this theory of gravity, right?
It's the falling elevator idea, right?
So this is not a reductionist kind of thing.
It's something different.
So simplification is a bigger thing
than just reductionism.
Reductionism has been a particularly useful
kind of scientific explanation,
for example, in thermodynamics, right?
Where the notion that we have of heat,
some macroscopic thing like temperature and heat,
it turns out that Neil Boltzmann and others discovered,
well, hey, if we go to smaller and smaller scales,
we find these things called molecules or atoms.
And if we think of them as bouncing around
and having some kind of energy,
then what we call heat is really can be reduced to that.
And so that's a particularly useful kind of reduction,
is a useful kind of scientific explanation
that works within a range of scales within space time.
But we know now precisely where that has to stop,
at 10 to the minus 33 centimeters
and 10 to the minus 43 seconds.
And I would be impressed
if it was 10 to the minus 33 trillion centimeters.
I'm not terribly impressed at 10 to the minus 33 centimeters.
I don't even know how to comprehend
either of those numbers, frankly.
Just a small aside,
because I am a computer science person,
I also find cellular automata beautiful.
And so you have somebody like Stephen Wolfram,
who recently has been very excitedly exploring
a proposal for a data structure that could be,
the numbers that would make you a little bit happier
in terms of scale,
because they're very, very, very, very tiny.
So do you like this space of exploration
of really thinking, letting go of space time,
letting go of everything,
and trying to think what kind of data structures
could be underneath this whole mess?
That's right.
So if they're thinking about these as outside of space time,
then that's what we have to do.
That's what our best theories are telling us.
You now have to think outside of space time.
Now, of course, I should back up and say,
we know that Einstein surpassed Newton, right?
But that doesn't mean that there's not good work
to do Newton.
There's all sorts of Newtonian physics
that takes us to the moon and so forth.
And there's lots of good problems
that we want to solve with Newtonian physics.
The same thing will be true of space time.
We'll still, it's not like we're gonna stop using space time.
We'll continue to do all sorts of good work there.
But for those scientists who are really looking to go deeper,
to actually find the next,
just like what Einstein did to Newton,
what are we gonna do to Einstein?
How do we get beyond Einstein and quantum theory
to something deeper?
Then we have to actually let go.
And if we're gonna do like this automata kind of approach,
it's critical that it's not automata in space time,
it's automata prior to space time,
from which we're going to show how space time emerges.
If you're doing automata within space time,
well, that might be a fun model,
but it's not the radical new step that we need.
Yeah, so the space time emerges from that,
whatever system, like you're saying,
it's a dynamical system.
Do we even have an understanding of what dynamical means
when we go beyond?
When you start to think about dynamics,
that could mean a lot of things.
Even causality could mean a lot of things
if we realize that everything's an interface.
Like what, how much do we really know
is an interesting question?
Because you brought up neurons,
I gotta ask you, yet another tangent.
There's a paper I remember a while ago looking at
called, could a neuroscientist understand a microprocessor?
And I just enjoyed that thought experiment
that they provided, which is,
they basically, it's a couple of neuroscientists,
Eric Jonas and Conrad Cording,
who use the tools of neuroscience
to analyze a microprocessor.
I saw a computer, computer chip.
Yeah, if we lesion it here, what happens and so forth?
And if you go and lesion into your computer,
it's very, very clear that lesion experiments
on computers are not gonna give you
a lot of insight into how it works.
And also the measurement devices and the kinda,
so just using the basic approaches
of neuroscience collecting the data,
trying to intuit about the underlying function of it.
And that helps you understand that
our scientific exploration of concepts,
depending on the field,
are maybe in the very, very early stages.
I wouldn't say it leaves us astray.
Perhaps it does sometimes,
but it's not a, it's not anywhere close
to some fundamental mechanism
that actually makes the thing work.
I don't know if you can sort of comment on that
in terms of using neuroscience to understand
the human mind and neurons.
Are we really far away potentially
from understanding in the way we understand
the transistors enough to be able to build a computer?
So one thing about understanding
is you can understand for fun.
The other one is to understand
so you could build things.
And that's when you really have to understand.
Exactly.
In fact, what got me into the field that I,
at MIT was worked by David Maher on this very topic.
So David Maher was a professor at MIT,
but he'd done his PhD in neuroscience,
studying just the architectures of the brain.
But he realized that his work, it was on the cerebellum.
He realized that his work, as rigorous as it was,
left him unsatisfied
because he didn't know what the cerebellum was for.
Yeah.
And why it had that architecture.
And so he went to MIT and he was in the AI lab there.
And he said he had this three level approach
that really grabbed my attention.
So when I was an undergrad at UCLA,
I read one of his papers in a class and said,
who is this guy?
Because he said, you have to have a computational theory.
What is being computed and why?
An algorithm, how is it being computed?
What are the prosaic algorithms?
And then the hardware,
how does it get instantiated in the hardware?
And so to really do neuroscience, he argued,
we needed to have understanding at all those levels.
And that really got me.
I loved the neuroscience,
but I realized this guy was saying,
if you can't build it, you don't understand it effectively.
And so that's why I went to MIT.
And I had the pleasure of working with David
until he died just a year and a half later.
So there's been that idea that with neuroscience,
we have to have in some sense a top-down model
of what's being computed and why
that we would then go after.
And the same thing with the,
trying to reverse engineer a computing system
like your laptop.
We really need to understand what the user interface
is about and why we have,
what are keys on the keyboard for and so forth.
You need to know why to really understand
all the circuitry and what it's for.
Now, evolution of a natural selection
does not tell us the deeper question that we're asking,
the answer to the deeper question, which is why.
What's this deeper reality and what's it up to
and why?
It all it tells us is that whatever reality is,
it's not what you see.
What you see is just an adaptive fiction.
So just to linger on this fascinating bold question
that shakes you out of your dream state.
Does this fiction still help you in building intuitions
as literary fiction does about reality?
The reason we read literary fiction is it helps us
build intuitions and understanding in indirect ways,
sneak up to the difficult questions of human nature.
Great fiction.
Same with this observed reality.
Does this interface that we get,
this fictional interface help us build intuition
about deeper truths of how this whole mess works?
Well, I think that each theory that we propose
will give its own answer to that question.
So when the physicists are proposing these structures
like the amplitude hydrant and cosmological polytope,
associate hydrant and so forth beyond space time,
we can then ask your question for those specific structures
and say how much information, for example,
does evolution of a natural selection
and the kinds of sensory systems that we have right now
give us about this deeper reality.
And why did we evolve this way?
We can try to answer that question from within the deeper.
So there's not gonna be a general answer.
I think we're gonna, what we'll have to do
is posit these new deeper theories
and then try to answer your question
within the framework of those deeper theories,
knowing full well that there'll be an even deeper theory.
So is this paralyzing though?
Cause how do we know we're not completely adrift out to see
lost forever from, so like that our theories
are completely lost.
So if it's all, if we can never truly deeply introspect
to the bottom, if it's always just turtles
on top of turtles infinitely, isn't that paralyzing
for a scientific mind?
Well, it's interesting that you say introspect
to the bottom because there is that, there is one,
again, this isn't the same spirit of what I said before,
which is it depends on what answer you give
to what's beyond space time,
what answer we would give to your question, right?
So, but one answer that is interesting to explore
is something that spiritual traditions
have said for thousands of years,
but haven't said precisely.
So we can't take it seriously in science
until it's made precise,
but we might be able to make it precise.
And that is that they've also said something
like space and time aren't fundamental,
they're Maya, they're illusion.
And, but that if you look inside, if you introspect
and let go of all of your particular perceptions,
you will come to something that's beyond conceptual thought.
And that is, they claim, being in contact
with the deep ground of being that transcends
any particular conceptual understanding.
If that is correct, and I'm not saying it's correct,
but, and I'm not saying it's not correct,
I'm just saying, if that's correct,
then it would be the case that as scientists,
because we also are in touch with this ground of being,
we would then not be able to conceptually understand
ourselves all the way,
but we could know ourselves just by being ourselves.
And so we would, there would be a sense
in which there is a fundamental grounding
to the whole enterprise,
because we're not separate from the enterprise.
This is the opposite of the impersonal third-person science.
This would make science go personal all the way down.
And, but nevertheless scientific
because the scientific method would still be
what we would use all the way down
for the conceptual understanding.
Unfortunately, you still don't know
if you went all the way down.
It's possible that this kind of whatever consciousness is
and we'll talk about it,
is getting the cliche statement of be yourself.
It is somehow digging at a deeper truth of reality,
but you still don't know when you get to the bottom.
You know, a lot of people, they'll take psychedelic drugs
and they'll say, well, that takes my mind
to certain places where it feels like
that is revealing some deeper truth of reality,
but you still, it could be interfaces on top of interfaces.
That's in your view of this,
you really don't know.
I mean, Gato's incompleteness is that you really don't know.
My own view on it, for what it's worth,
because I don't know the right answer,
but my own view on it right now is that it's never ending.
I think that there will never,
that this is great, as I said before,
great job security for science.
And that we, if this is true,
and if consciousness is somehow important
or fundamental in the universe,
this may be an important fundamental fact
about consciousness itself,
that it's never ending exploration
that's going on in some sense.
Well, that's interesting.
Let me push back on the job security.
Okay.
So maybe as we understand this kind of idea
deeper and deeper,
we understand that the pursuit is not a fruitful one.
Then maybe we need to,
maybe that's why we don't see aliens everywhere,
is you get smarter and smarter and smarter.
You realize that like exploration is,
there's other fun ways to spend your time than exploring.
You could be sort of living maximally
in some way that's not exploration.
You know, I could,
there's all kinds of video games you can construct
and put yourself inside of them
that don't involve you going outside of the game world.
It's, you know, feeling for my human perspective,
what seems to be fun is challenging yourself
and overcoming those challenges.
So you can constantly artificially generate challenges
for yourself, like Sisyphus and his boulder, just.
And that's it.
So the scientific method
that's always reaching out to the stars,
that's always trying to figure out
the puzzle on bottom puzzle, the trick,
always trying to get to the bottom turtle.
Maybe if we can build more and more the intuition
that that's an infinite pursuit, we get,
we agree to start deviating from that pursuit,
start enjoying the here and now
versus the looking out into the unknown always.
Maybe that's looking out into the unknown
is a early activity for a species that's evolved.
I'm just sort of saying, pushing back
is you probably got a lot of scientists excited
in terms of job security.
I could envision where it's not job security
or scientists become more and more useless.
Maybe they're like the holders of the ancient wisdom
that allows us to study our own history,
but not much more than that.
Just to get fun pushback.
That's good pushback.
I'll put one in there for the scientists again.
Yes.
But sure, but then I'll take the other side too.
So when Faraday did all of his experiments
with magnets and electricity and so forth,
he came with all this wonderful empirical data
and James Clerk Maxwell looked at it
and wrote down a few equations,
which we can now write down in a single equation,
the Maxwell equation if we use geometric algebra,
just one equation.
That opened up unbelievable technologies
where people are zooming and talking
to each other around the world, the whole electronics industry.
There was something that transformed our lives
in a very positive way with the theories beyond space time.
Here's one potential.
Right now, most of the galaxies that we see,
we can see them, but we know that we could never get to them
no matter how fast we traveled.
They're going away from us at the speed of light or beyond.
So we can't ever get to them.
So there's all this beautiful real estate
that's just smiling and waving at us
and we can never get to it.
But that's if we go through space time.
But if we recognize that space time
is just a data structure, it's not fundamental.
We're not little things inside space time.
Space time was a little data structure in our perceptions.
It's just the other way around.
Once we understand that, and we get equations
for the stuff that's beyond space time,
maybe we won't have to go through space time.
Maybe we can go around it.
Maybe I can go to Proxima Centauri
and not go through space.
I can just go right there directly.
It's a data structure, we can start to play with it.
So I think that for what it's worth,
my take would be that the endless sequence of theories
that we could contemplate building
will lead to an endless sequence
of new remarkable insights into the potentialities,
the possibilities that would seem miraculous to us
and that we will be motivated
to continue the exploration partly
just for the technological innovations that come out.
But the other thing that you mentioned though,
what about just being?
What have we decided instead of all this doing
and exploring what about being?
My guess is that the best scientists will do both
and that the act of being will be a place
where they get many of their ideas
and that they then pull into the conceptual realm.
And I think many of the best scientists,
Einstein comes to mind, right?
Where these guys say, look,
I didn't come up with these ideas by a conceptual analysis.
I was thinking in vague images
and it was just something non-conceptual.
And then it took me a long, long time
to pull it out into concepts
and then longer to put it into math.
But the real insights didn't come from just slavishly,
playing with equations.
They came from a deeper place.
And so there may be this going back and forth
between the complete non-conceptual
where there's essentially no end to the wisdom
and then conceptual systems
where there's the girdle limits that we have to that.
And that may be if consciousness is important
and fundamental, that may be what consciousness,
at least part of what consciousness is about
is this discovering itself,
discovering its possibilities, so to speak.
We can talk about what that might mean
by going from the non-conceptual to the conceptual
and back and forth.
To get better and better and better at being.
Right.
Let me ask you, just to link on the evolutionary,
because you mentioned evolutionary game theory
and that's really where you,
the perspective from which you come
to form the case against reality.
At which point in our evolutionary history
that we start to deviate the most from reality?
Is it way before life even originated on earth?
Is it in the early development from bacteria and so on?
Or is it when some inklings
of what we think of as intelligence
or maybe even complex consciousness started to emerge?
So where did this deviation,
just like with the interfaces in a computer,
you start with transistors and then you have assembly
and then you have C, C++, then you have Python,
then you have GUIs, all that kind of layers upon layers.
When did we start to deviate?
Well, David Maher, again, my advisor at MIT, in his book,
Vision, suggested that the more primitive sensory systems
were less realistic, less theoretical,
but that by the time you got to something as complicated
as the humans, we were actually estimating the true shapes
and distances to objects and so forth.
So his point of view, and I think it was probably,
it's not an uncommon view among my colleagues
that the sensory systems of lower creatures
may just not be complicated enough
to give them much, much truth.
But as you get to 86 billion neurons,
you can now compute the truth
or at least the parts of the truth that we need.
When I look at evolutionary game theory,
one of my graduate students, Justin Mark,
did some simulations using genetic algorithms.
So there he was just exploring,
we start off with random organisms,
random sensory genetics and random actions
and the first generation was unbelievably,
there was a foraging situation,
they were foraging for resources.
Most of them, you know, stayed in one place,
didn't do anything important.
And, but we could then just look at how the genes evolved.
And what we found was, what he found was that
basically you never even saw the truth organisms
even come on the stage.
If they came out, they were gone in one generation,
they just weren't.
So they came and went even just in one generation,
they just are not good enough.
The ones that were just tracking,
their senses just were tracking the fitness payoffs
were far more fit than the truth seekers.
So from, so an answer at one level,
I want to give an answer to a deeper level,
but just with evolutionary game theory,
because my attitude as a scientist is,
I don't believe any of our theories.
I take them very, very seriously, I study them,
I look at their implications,
but none of them are the gospel,
they're just the latest ideas that we have.
And so the reason I study evolutionary game theories
because that's the best tool we have right now in this area.
There is nothing else that competes.
And so as a scientist is my responsibility
to take the best tools and see what they mean.
And the same thing the physicists are doing,
they're taking the best tools
and looking at what they entail.
But I don't, I think that science now has enough experience
to realize that we should not believe our theories
in the sense that we've now arrived.
In 1890, it was a lot of physicists thought we'd arrived.
They were discouraging bright young students
from going into physics because it was all done.
And that's precisely the wrong attitude.
Forever is the wrong attitude forever.
The attitude we should have is a century from now,
they'll be looking at us and laughing at what we didn't know.
And we just have to assume that that's going to be the case.
Just know that everything that we think
is so brilliant right now, our final theory.
A century from now, they'll look at us
like we look at the physicists of 1890
and go, how could they have been so dumb?
Yeah.
So I don't want to make that mistake.
So I'm not Dr. Nair about any
of our current scientific theories.
I am Dr. Nair about this.
We should use the best tools we have right now.
And with humility.
Well, so let me ask you about game theory.
There's, I love game theory, evolution game theory.
But I'm always suspicious of it, like economics.
When you construct models, it's too easy to construct things
that oversimplify just because we, our human brains,
enjoy the simplification of constructing a few variables
that somehow represent organisms or represent people
and running a simulation that then allows you
to build up intuition and then it feels really good
because you can get some really deep
and surprising intuitions.
But how do you know your models aren't,
the assumptions underlying your models
aren't some fundamentally flawed
and because of that, your conclusions
are fundamentally flawed.
So I guess my question is what are the limits
in your use of game theory, evolution game theory,
your experience with it?
What are the limits of game theory?
So I've gotten some pushback from professional colleagues
and friends who have tried to rerun simulations
and try to, the idea that we don't see the truth
is not comfortable.
And so many of my colleagues are very interested
in trying to show that we're wrong.
And so the idea would be to say that somehow we did something
as your suggestion, maybe something special
that wasn't completely general.
We got some little special part of the whole search space
in evolutionary game theory in which this happens to be true.
But more generally, organisms would evolve
to see the truth.
So the best pushback we've gotten
is from a team at Yale.
And they suggested that if you use thousands
of payoff functions, so our simulations,
we'd just use a couple, one or two.
Because it was our first simulations, right?
So that would be a limit.
We had one or two payoff functions,
we showed the result in those,
at least for the genetic algorithms.
And they said if you have 20,000 of them,
then we can find these conditions
in which truth-seeing organisms
would be the ones that evolved and survived.
And so we looked at their simulations
and it certainly is the case
that you can find special cases
in which truth can evolve.
So when I say it's probability zero,
it doesn't mean it can't happen.
It can happen.
In fact, it could happen infinitely often.
It's just probability zero.
So if probability zero things can happen infinitely often.
When you say probability zero, you mean probability close
to zero.
To be very precise.
So for example, if I have a unit square on the plane,
and I use a measure in which the,
on the probability measure in which the area
of a region is this probability.
Then if I draw a curve in that unit square,
it has measure precisely zero,
precisely, not approximately, precisely zero.
And yet it has infinitely many points.
So there's an object that,
for that probability measure has probability zero,
and yet there's infinitely many points on it.
So that's what I mean when I say that
the things that are probability zero
can happen infinitely often in principle.
Yeah, but infinity as far as,
and I look outside often at walk around
and I look at people,
I haven't never seen infinity in real life.
That's an interesting issue.
I've been looking.
I've been looking.
Dad, I don't notice it, infinitely small
or the infinitely big.
And so the tools of mathematics,
you could sort of apply the same kind of criticism
that it is a very convenient interface into our reality.
That's a big debate in mathematics.
The intuitionist versus the ones who take,
for example, the real numbers as real.
And that's a fun discussion.
Nicholas Giesen has a physicist
who said really interesting work recently
on how if you go with intuitionist mathematics,
you could effectively quantize Newton
and you find that Newtonian theory
and quantum theory aren't that different
once you go with it.
It's funny.
It's really quite interesting.
So the issue you raise is a very, very deep one
and one that I think we should take quite seriously,
which is how shall we think about the reality
of the contrast hierarchy,
ale of one, ale of two and all these different infinities
versus just a more algorithmic approach, right?
So where everything's computable in some sense,
everything's finite as big as you want,
but nevertheless, finite.
So yeah, they ultimately boils down to
whether the world is discrete or continuous
in some general sense.
And again, we can't really know,
but there's just a mind-breaking thought,
just common sense reasoning that something can happen
and is yet probability of it happening is 0%.
That doesn't compute for common sense computer.
Right.
This is where you have to be a sharp mathematician
to really, and I'm not.
Sharp is one word.
What I'm saying is common sense computer is,
I mean that in a very kind of positive sense
because we've been talking about perception systems
and interfaces, if we are to reason about the world,
we have to use the best interfaces we got.
And I'm not exactly sure that game theory
is the best interface we got for this.
Oh, right.
And application of mathematics tricks and tools
of mathematics to game theory is the best we got
when we're thinking about the nature of reality
and fitness functions and evolution, period.
Well, that's a fair rejoinder.
And I think that that was the tool that we used.
And if someone says, here's a better mathematical tool
and here's why, this is this mathematical tool
better captures the essence of Darwin's idea.
John Maynard Smith didn't quite get it
with evolutionary game theory.
There's this better, this thing.
Now, there are tools like evolutionary graph theory,
which generalize evolutionary game theory.
And then there's quantum game theory.
So you can use quantum tools like entanglement,
for example, as a resource in games
that change the very nature of the solutions,
of the optimal solutions of the game theory.
Well, the work from Yale is really interesting.
It's a really interesting challenge
of that kind of these ideas where, okay,
if you have a very large number of fitness functions
or let's say you have a nearly infinite number
of fitness functions or a growing number
of fitness functions, what kind of interesting things
start to emerging if you are to be an organism.
If to be an organism that adapts means having to deal
with an ensemble of fitness functions.
Right, and so we've actually redone some
of our own work based on theirs.
And this is the back and forth that we expect in science.
And what we found was that they, in their simulations,
they were assuming that you couldn't carve the world
up into objects.
And so we said, well, let's relax that assumption.
Allow organisms to create data structures
that we might call objects.
And an object would be you would do hierarchical clustering
of your fitness payoff functions.
The ones that have similar shapes.
If you have 20,000 of them, maybe these 50
are all very, very similar.
So I can take all the perception action fitness stuff
and make that into a data structure
and we'll call that a unit or an object.
And as soon as we did that,
then all of their results went away.
It turned out they were the special case
and that the organisms that were allowed
to only see that that were shaped
to see only fitness payoffs were the ones that were.
So the idea is that objects then,
what are objects from an evolutionary point of view?
This bottle, we thought that when I saw a bottle,
it was because I was seeing a true object
that existed whether or not it was perceived.
Evolutionary theories suggest a different interpretation.
I'm seeing a data structure that is encoding
a convenient way of looking at various fitness payoffs.
I can use this for drinking.
I could use it as a weapon, not a very good one.
I could beat someone with head with it.
If my goal is mating, this is pointless.
So I'm seeing for what I'm coding here
is all sorts of actions and the payoffs that I could get.
When I pick up an apple,
now I'm getting a different set of actions and payoffs.
When I pick up a rock, I'm getting,
so for every object,
what I'm getting is a different set of payoff functions
and act with various actions.
And so once you allow that,
then what you find is once again that truth goes extinct
and the organisms that just get an interface
are the ones that that went.
But the question, I'm just sneaking up on,
this is fascinating.
From where do fitness functions originate?
What gives birth to the fitness functions?
So if there's a giant black box
that just keeps giving you fitness functions,
what are we trying to optimize?
You said that water has different uses than an apple.
So there's these objects.
What are we trying to optimize?
And why is not reality
a really good generator of fitness functions?
So each theory makes its own assumptions.
It says, grant me this, then I'll explain that.
So evolutionary game theory says grant me fitness payoffs,
right, and grant me strategies with payoffs
and I can write down the matrix
for this strategy interacts with that strategy.
These are the payoffs that come up.
If you grant me that,
then I can start to explain a lot of things.
Now you can ask for a deeper question like,
okay, how does physics evolve biology
and where do these fitness payoffs come from, right?
Now that's a completely different enterprise
and of course evolutionary game theory then
would be not the right tool for that.
It would have to be a deeper tool
that shows where evolutionary game theory comes from.
My own take is that there's gonna be a problem in doing that
because space time isn't fundamental.
It's just a user interface
and that the distinction that we make
between living and non-living
is not a fundamental distinction.
It's an artifact of the limits of our interface, right?
So this is a new wrinkle and this is an important wrinkle.
It's so nice to take space and time as fundamental
because if something looks like it's inanimate,
it's inanimate and we can just say it's not living.
Now it's much more complicated.
Certain things are obviously living.
I'm talking with you,
I'm obviously interacting with something
that's alive and conscious.
I think we've let go of the word obviously
in this conversation.
I think nothing is obvious.
Nothing's obvious, that's right.
But when we get down to like an ant,
it's obviously living,
but I'll say it appears to be living.
When we get down to a virus, now people wonder
and when we get down to protons,
people say it's not living.
And my attitude is, look, I have a user interface.
Interface is there to hide certain aspects of reality
and others to, it's an uneven representation,
put it that way.
Certain things just get completely hidden.
Dark matter and dark energy are most of the energy
and matter that's out there.
Our interface just flat out hides them.
The only way we get some hint is
because gravitational things are going wrong
within our, so most things are outside of our interface.
The distinction between living and non-living
is not fundamental, it's an artifact of our interface.
So if we really want to understand
where evolution comes from,
to answer the question, the deep question you asked,
I think the right way we're gonna have to do that
is to come up with a deeper theory than spacetime,
in which there may not be the notion of time.
And show that whatever this dynamics of that,
deeper theory is, by the way,
I'll talk about how you could have dynamics without time,
but the dynamics of this deeper theory,
when we project it into, in certain ways,
then we do get spacetime and we get what appears
to be evolution by natural selection.
So I would love to see evolution by natural selection,
nature, red and tooth and claw,
people fighting and animals fighting for resource
and the whole bit, come out of a deeper theory
in which perhaps it's all cooperation.
There's no limited resources and so forth,
but as a result of projection, you get space and time,
and as a result of projection,
you get nature, red and tooth and claw,
the appearance of it,
but it's all an artifact of the interface.
I like this idea that the line between living
and non-living is very important,
because that's the thing that would emerge
before you have evolution, the idea of death.
So that seems to be an important component
of natural selection and if that emerged,
because that's also asking the question
that I guess that I asked,
where do fitness functions come from?
That's like asking the old meaning of life question, right?
It's the why, why, why?
And one of the big underlying whys,
okay, you can start with evolution on earth,
but without living, without life and death,
without the line between the living and the dead,
you don't have evolution.
So what if underneath it,
there's no such thing as the living and the dead?
There's no, like this concept of an organism period.
There's a living organism that's defined by a volume
and space time that somehow interacts,
that over time maintains its integrity somehow.
It has some kind of history.
It has a wall of some kind.
The outside world, the environment,
and then inside there's an organism.
So you're defining an organism
and also you're defining that organism
by the fact that it can move
and it can become alive,
which you kind of think of as moving,
combined with the fact that it's keeping itself separate
from the environment.
So you can point out that thing is living
and then it can also die.
That seems to be of all very powerful components
of space time that enable you
to have something like natural selection and evolution.
Well, and there's a lot of interesting work,
some of it by collaborators of Carl Friston and others
where they have Bayes net kind of stuff
that they build on in the notion of a Markov blanket.
So you have some states within this network
that are inside the blanket, then you have the blanket
and then the states outside the blanket.
And the states inside this Markov blanket
are conditionally independent of the states outside
the blanket conditioned on the blanket.
And what they're looking at is that the dynamics
inside of the states inside the Markov blanket
seem to be trying to estimate properties of the outside
and react to them in a way.
So it seems like you're doing probabilistic inferences
in ways that might be able to keep you alive.
So there's interesting work going on in that direction.
But what I'm saying is something slightly different.
And that is, like when I look at you,
all I see is skin heronize, right?
That's all I see.
But I know that there's a deeper reality.
I believe that there's a much deeper reality.
There's the whole world of your experiences,
your thoughts, your hopes, your dreams.
In some sense, the face that I see is just a symbol
that I create, right?
And as soon as I look away, I delete that symbol.
But I don't delete you.
I don't delete the conscious experience,
the whole world of your...
So I'm only deleting an interface symbol.
But that interface symbol is a portal, so to speak.
Not a perfect portal, but a genuine portal
into your beliefs, into your conscious experiences,
into that's why we can have a conversation.
We genuinely, your consciousness is genuinely affecting mine,
and mine is genuinely affecting yours,
through these icons, which I create on the fly.
I mean, I create your face when I look, I delete it.
I don't create you, your consciousness,
that's there all the time, but I do...
So now when I look at a cat,
I'm creating something that I still call living,
and I still think is conscious.
When I look at an ant, I create something
that I still would call living, but may be not conscious.
When I look at something I call a virus,
now I'm not even sure I would call it living.
And when I look at a proton, I would say,
I don't even think it's not alive at all.
It could be that I'm nevertheless interacting
with something that's just as conscious as you.
I'm not saying the proton is conscious.
The face that I'm creating when I look at you,
that face is not conscious.
That face is a data structure in me.
That face, it's an experience, it's not an experiencer.
Similarly, a proton is something that I create when I look
or do a collision in the Large Hadron Collider
or something like that.
But what is behind the entity and space time?
So I've got this space-time interface,
and I've just got this entity that I call a proton.
What is the reality behind it?
Well, the physicists are finding these big, big structures
like the Amplitude Hadron, the Associated Hadron.
What's behind those?
Could be consciousness, what I'm playing with.
In which case, when I'm interacting with a proton,
I could be interacting with consciousness.
Again, to be very, very clear,
because it's easy to misunderstand,
I'm not saying a proton is conscious.
Just like I'm not saying your face is conscious.
Your face is a symbol I create and then delete as I look,
and so your face is not conscious,
but I know that that face in my interface,
the Lex Friedman face that I create,
is an interface symbol that's a genuine portal
into your consciousness.
The portal is less clear for a cat,
even less clear for an ant,
and by the time we get down to a proton,
the portal is not clear at all.
But that doesn't mean I'm not interacting with consciousness,
it just means my interface gave up.
And there's some deeper reality that we have to go after.
So your question really forces out a big part
of this whole approach that I'm talking about.
So it's this portal and conscious.
I wonder why you can't,
your portal is not as good to a cat,
to the cat's consciousness than it is to a human.
Does it have to do with the fact that you're human
and just similar organisms,
organisms with similar complexity
are able to create portals better to each other?
Or is it just, as you get more and more complex,
you get better and better portals?
Well, let me answer one aspect
that I'm more confident about,
and then I'll speculate on that.
Why is it that the portal is so bad with protons?
Well, and elementary particles more generally,
so quarks, leptons, and gluons, and so forth.
Well, the reason for that is because those are just
symmetries of space-time.
More technically, they're irreducible representations
of the Poincaré group of space-time.
So they're just literally representations
of the data structure of space-time that we're using.
So that's why they're not very much insightful.
They're just almost entirely tied
to the data structure itself.
There's not much, they're telling you only something
about the data structure, not behind the data structure.
It's only when we get to higher levels
that we're starting to, in some sense,
build portals to what's behind space-time.
Sure, yeah.
So there's more and more complexity built on top
of the interface of space-time with the cat.
So you can actually build a portal, right?
Yeah, yeah, right.
Yeah, this interface of face and hair and so on.
Skin.
There's some sinking going on between humans, though.
Where we sink, like, you're getting a pretty good
representation of the ideas in my head
and starting to get a foggy view of my memories
in my head, even though, you know,
this is the first time we're talking,
you start to project your own memories.
You start to solve, like, a giant hierarchy
of puzzles about a human.
Because we're all, there's a lot of similarities,
a lot of it rhymes.
So you start to make a lot of inferences
and you build up this model of a person.
You have a pretty sophisticated model
of what's going on underneath.
Again, I just, I wonder if it's possible
to construct these models about each other
and, nevertheless, be very distant
from an underlying reality.
The sinking. Yeah, there's a lot of work on this.
So there's some interesting work called Signaling Games
where they look at how people can coordinate
and come to communicate.
There's some interesting work that was done
by some colleagues and friends of mine,
Lewis Naran's and Natalia Comorova and Kimberly Jamison,
where they were looking at evolving color words.
So you have a circle of colors,
you know, the color circle.
And they wanted to see if they could get people
to cooperate and how they carved the color circle
up into units of words.
And so they had a game,
theoretic kind of thing that they'd had people do.
And what they found was that when they included,
so most people are trichromats,
you have three kinds of cone photoreceptors,
but there are some, a lot of men,
7% of men have our dichromats.
They might be missing the red cone photoreceptor.
They found that the dichromats had an outsized influence
on the final ways that the whole space of colors
was carved up and labels attached.
You needed to be able to include the dichromats
in the conversation.
And so they had a bigger influence
on how you made the boundaries of the language.
Now I thought that was a really interesting kind of insight
that there's going to be, again, a game,
perhaps a game or evolutionary or genetic algorithm
kind of thing that goes on in terms of learning
to communicate in ways that are useful.
And so yeah, you can use game theory to actually explore
that we're signaling games.
There's a lot of brilliant work on that.
I'm not doing it, but there's work out there.
So if it's okay, let us tackle once more
and perhaps several more times
after the big topic of consciousness.
Okay.
This very beautiful, powerful things
that perhaps is the thing that makes us human.
What is it?
What's the role of consciousness in,
let's say even just the thing we've been talking about,
which is the formation of this interface,
any kind of ways you want to kind of start talking about it.
Well, let me say first what most of my colleagues say.
99% are again, assuming that space time is fundamental.
Particles and space time matter is fundamental.
And most are reductionist.
And so the standard approach to consciousness
is to figure out what complicated systems of matter
with the right functional properties
could possibly lead to the emergence of consciousness.
That's the general idea, right?
So maybe you have to have neurons.
Maybe only if you have neurons,
but that might not be enough.
They have to certain kinds of complexity
in their organization and their dynamics.
Certain kind of network abilities, for example.
So there are those who say, for example,
that consciousness arises from orchestrated collapse
of quantum states of microtubules and neurons.
So this is hemorrhagic hemorrhage, that's kind of.
So you start with something physical,
a property of quantum states of neurons,
of microtubules and neurons.
And you say that somehow an orchestrated collapse
of those is consciousness or conscious experiences.
Or integrated information theory.
Again, you start with something physical.
And if it has the right kind of functional properties,
it's something they call fee,
with the right kind of integrated information,
then you have consciousness.
Or you can be a panpsychist,
Philip Goff, for example,
where you might say, well,
in addition to the particles in space and time,
those particles are not just matter,
they also could have, say, a unit of consciousness.
And so, but once again, you're taking space and time
and particles is fundamental.
And you're adding a new property to them,
see the consciousness.
And then you have to talk about how,
when a proton and a neutron or a proton and electron
get together to form hydrogen,
then how those consciousnesses merge to,
or interact to create the consciousness of hydrogen,
and so forth.
There's attention schema theory,
which again, this is how neural network processes,
representing to the network itself,
it's attentional processes,
that could be consciousness.
There's global workspace theory.
And neuronal global workspace theory.
So there's many, many theories of this type.
What's common to all of them,
is they assume that space time is fundamental.
They assume that physical processes
and space time is fundamental.
Panpsychism adds consciousness as an additional thing,
is almost dualist in that regard.
And my attitude is, our best science is telling us
that space time is not fundamental.
So why is that important here?
Well, for centuries, deep thinkers thought of
earth, air, fire, and water as the fundamental elements.
It was a reductionist kind of idea.
Nothing was more elemental than those,
and you could sort of build everything up from those.
When we got the periodic table of elements,
we realized that, of course,
we want to study earth, air, fire, and water.
There's combustion science for fire,
there's sciences for all these other things, water,
and so forth.
So we're gonna do science for these things,
but fundamental, no, no.
If you're looking for something fundamental,
those are the wrong building blocks.
Earth has many, many different kinds of elements
that project into the one thing that we call earth.
If you don't understand that there's silicon,
that there's iron,
that there's all these different kinds of things
that project into what we call earth,
you're hopelessly lost.
You're not fundamental, you're not gonna get there.
And then after the periodic table,
then we came up with quarks, leptons, and gluons,
the particles of the standard model of physics.
And so we actually now know
that if you really want to get fundamental,
the periodic table isn't it.
It's good for chemistry,
and it's just wonderful for chemistry,
but if you're trying to go deep, fundamental,
what is the fundamental science, that's not it.
You're gonna have to go to quarks, leptons,
and gluons, and so forth.
Well, now we've discovered spacetime itself is doomed.
Quarks, leptons, and gluons
are just irreducible representations
of the symmetries of spacetime.
So the whole framework on which consciousness research
is being based right now is doomed.
And for me, these are my friends and colleagues
that are doing this, they're brilliant.
They're absolutely, they're brilliant.
My feeling is I'm so sad
that they're stuck with this old framework
because if they weren't stuck,
like with earth, air, fire, and water,
you could actually make progress.
So it doesn't matter how smart you are.
If you start with earth, air, fire, and water,
you're not gonna get anywhere, right?
Can I actually just,
because the word doomed is so interesting.
Let me give you some options, multiple choice quiz.
Is spacetime, we could say is reality,
the way we perceive it, doomed,
wrong or fake?
Because doomed just means it could still be right
and we're now ready to go deeper.
It would be that.
So it's not wrong.
It's not a complete deviation
from a journey toward the truth.
Right, it's like earth, air, fire, and water is not wrong.
There is earth, air, fire, and water.
That's a useful framework, but it's not fundamental.
Right, well, there's also wrong,
which is they used to believe, as I recently learned,
that George Washington was the first president
in the United States was blood to death
for something that could have been easily treated
because it was believed that you can get,
actually I need to look into this further,
but I guess you get toxins out or demons out.
I don't know what you're getting out
with the bleeding of a person.
But so that ended up being wrong,
but widely believed as a medical tool.
So it's also possible that our assumption of space time
is not just doomed, but it's wrong.
Well, if we believe that it's fundamental, that's wrong.
But if we believe it's a useful tool, that's right.
But bleeding somebody to death
was believed to be a useful tool.
And that was wrong.
It wasn't just not fundamental.
It was very, I'm sure there's cases
in which bleeding somebody would work,
but it would be a very tiny, tiny, tiny percentage of cases.
So it could be that it's wrong.
Like it's a side road that's ultimately leading to a dead end
as opposed to a truck stop or something
that you can get off of.
My feeling is not the dead end kind of thing.
I think that what the physicists are finding
is that there are these structures beyond space time,
but they project back into space time.
And so space time, when they say space time is doomed,
they're explicit, they're saying it's doomed
in the sense that we thought it was fundamental.
It's not fundamental.
It's a useful, absolutely useful and brilliant data structure,
but there are deeper data structures
like cosmological polytope.
And space time is not fundamental.
What is doomed in the sense that it's wrong
is reductionism.
Which is saying space time is fundamental, essentially.
Right, right.
The idea that somehow being smaller in space and time
or space time is a fundamental nature of reality,
that's just wrong.
It turned out to be a useful heuristic
for thermodynamics and so forth and several other places.
Reductionism has been very useful,
but that's in some sense an artifact of how we use our interface.
Yeah, so you're saying size doesn't matter.
Okay, this is very important for me to write down ultimately.
Ultimately, right.
I mean, it's useful for theories like thermodynamics
and also for understanding brain networks
in terms of individual neurons and neurons
in terms of chemical systems inside cells.
That's all very, very useful.
But the idea that we're getting to the more fundamental nature
of reality, no.
When you get all the way down in that direction,
you get down to the quarks and gluons.
What you realize is what you've gotten down to
is not fundamental reality, just the irreducible representations
of a data structure.
That's all you've gotten down to.
So you're always stuck inside the data structure.
So you seem to be getting closer and closer.
I went from neural networks to neurons to chemistry,
chemistry to particles, particles to clerks and gluons.
I'm getting closer and closer to the realm.
No, I'm getting closer and closer to the actual structure
of the data structure of space and time,
the irreducible representations.
That's what you're getting closer to,
not to a deeper understanding of what's beyond space-time.
We'll also refer, we'll return again
to this question of dynamics,
because you keep saying that space-time is doomed,
but mostly focusing on the space part of that.
It's very interesting to see why time gets the bad cred too,
because how do you have dynamics without time
is the thing I'd love to talk to you a little bit about.
But let us return your brilliant whirlwind overview
of the different theories of consciousness
that are out there.
What is consciousness if outside of space-time?
If we think that we want to have a model of consciousness,
we as scientists then have to say,
what do we want to write down?
What kind of mathematical modeling
are we gonna write down, right?
And if you think about it,
there's lots of things that you might want to write down
about consciousness.
Really complicated subject.
So most of my colleagues are saying,
let's start with matter or neurons
and see what properties of matter could create consciousness.
But I'm saying that that whole thing is out.
Space-time is doomed, that whole thing is out.
We need to look at consciousness, qua consciousness.
In other words, not as something that arises
in space and time,
but perhaps as something that creates space and time
as a data structure.
So what do we want?
And here, again, there's no hard and fast rule,
but what you as a scientist have to do is to pick
what you think are the minimal assumptions
that are gonna allow you to boot up a comprehensive theory.
That is the trick.
So what do I want?
So what I chose to do was to have three things.
I said that there are conscious experiences,
the feeling of headache, the smell of garlic,
experiencing the color red, those are conscious.
So that's a primitive of theory.
And the reason I want few primitives, why?
Because those are the miracles of the theory, right?
The primitives, the assumptions of the theory
are the things you're not going to explain.
Those are the things you assume.
And those experiences, you particularly mean,
there's a subjectiveness to them.
That's the thing when people refer
to the hard problem of consciousness,
is it feels like something to look at the color red, okay?
Exactly right.
It feels like something to have a headache
or to feel upset to your stomach.
It feels like something.
And so I'm going to grant that in this theory,
there are experiences and they're fundamental
in some sense, so conscious experience.
So they're not derived from physics.
They're not functional properties of particles.
They are pseudo-generous, they exist.
Just like we assume space time exists,
I'm now saying space time is just a data structure.
It doesn't exist independent of conscious experiences.
Sorry to interrupt once again,
but should we be focusing in your thinking on humans alone?
Or is there something about in relation
to other kinds of organisms
that have a sufficiently high level of complexity?
Or is there some kind of generalization
of the panpsychist idea that all consciousness permeates,
all matter, outside of the usual definition
of what matter is inside space time?
So it's beyond human consciousness.
Human consciousness, from my point of view,
would be one of a countless variety of consciousnesses.
And even within human consciousness,
there's countless variety of consciousnesses within us.
Right?
I mean, you have your left and right hemisphere.
And apparently, if you split the corpus callosum,
the personality of the left hemisphere
and the religious beliefs of the left hemisphere
can be very different from the right hemisphere.
And their conscious experiences can be disjoint.
One could have one conscious experience.
They can play 20 questions.
The left hemisphere can have an idea in its mind,
and the right hemisphere has to guess.
And it might not get it.
So even within you, there is more than just one consciousness.
It's lots of consciousnesses.
So the general theory of consciousness that I'm after
is not just human consciousness.
It's going to be just consciousness.
And I presume human consciousness is a tiny drop
in the bucket of the infinite variety of consciousnesses.
That said, I should clarify that the black hole
of consciousness is the home cat.
I'm pretty sure cat's lack is the embodiment of evil
and lack all capacity for consciousness or compassion.
So I just want to leave that on to you.
But that's the theory I'm working on.
I don't have any good evidence, but it's just a shout out.
Sorry to distract.
So that's the first assumption.
The first assumption.
The second assumption is that these experiences
have consequences.
So I'm going to say that conscious experiences can
trigger other conscious experiences somehow.
So really, in some sense, there's two basic assumptions.
There's some kind of causality.
Is there is a chain of causality?
Does it relate to dynamics?
I'll say there's a probabilistic relationship.
And then so I'm trying to be as nonspecific to begin with
and see where it leads me.
So what I can write down are probability spaces.
So a probability space, which contains the conscious
experiences that this consciousness can have.
So I call this a conscious agent.
This technical thing.
Annika Harris and I have talked about this.
And she rightly cautions me that people will think
that I'm bringing in a notion of a self or agency
and so forth when I say conscious agent.
So I just want to say that I use the term conscious agent
merely as a technical term.
There is no notion of self in my fundamental definition
of a conscious agent.
There are only experiences and probabilistic
relationships of how they trigger other experiences.
So the agent is the generator of the conscious experience?
The agent is a mathematical structure
that includes a probability measure,
a probability space of possible conscious experiences
and what an Amarkovian kernel, which
describes how if this agent has certain conscious
experiences, how that will affect the experiences
of other conscious agents.
Including itself.
But you don't think of that as a self?
No, there is no notion of a self here.
There's no notion of really of an agent.
But is there a locality?
Is there an organism?
There's no space.
So these are conscious units, conscious entities.
But they're distinct in some way, because they
have to interact.
Well, so here's the interesting thing.
When we write down the mathematics,
when you have two of these conscious agents interacting,
the pair satisfy a definition of a conscious agent.
So they are a single conscious agent.
So there is one conscious agent.
But it has a nice analytic decomposition
into as many conscious agents as you would.
So that's a nice interface.
It's a very useful scientific interface.
It's a scale-free or if you like a fractal-like approach
to it in which we can use the same unit of analysis
at all scales in studying consciousness.
But if I want to talk about, so there's
no notion of learning, memory, problem solving,
intelligence, self, agency, so none of that is fundamental.
And the reason I did that was because I
want to assume as little as possible.
Everything I assume is a miracle in the theory.
It's not something you explain, it's something you assume.
So I have to build networks of conscious agents.
If I want to have a notion of a self,
I have to build a self.
I have to build learning, memory, problem solving,
intelligence, and planning, all these different things.
I have to build networks of conscious agents to do that.
It's a trivial theorem that networks of conscious agents
are computationally universal.
That's trivial.
So anything that we can do with neural networks or automata,
you can do with networks of conscious agents.
That's trivial.
But you can also do more.
The events in the probability space need not be computable.
So the Markovian dynamics is not restricted
to computable functions because the very events themselves
need not be computable.
So this can capture any computable theory.
Anything we can do with neural networks,
we can do with conscious agent networks.
But it leaves open the door for the possibility
of non-computable interactions between conscious agents.
So if we want a theory of memory, we have to build it.
And there's lots of different ways you could build.
We've actually got a paper,
Chris Fields took the lead on this,
and we have a paper called conscious agent networks
where Chris takes the lead and shows how to use
these networks of conscious agents to build memory
and to build primitive kinds of learning.
But can you provide some intuition of what conscious networks
networks of conscious agents helps you?
Well, first of all, what that looks like.
And I don't just mean mathematically, of course,
maybe that might help build up intuition,
but how that helps us potentially solve the hard problem
of consciousness, or is that baked in that that exists?
Can you solve the hard problem of consciousness?
Why it tastes delicious when you eat a delicious ice cream
with networks of conscious agents?
Or is that taken as an assumption?
So the standard way the hard problem is thought of
is we're assuming space and time in particles,
or neurons, for example.
These are just physical things that have no consciousness.
And we have to explain how the conscious experience of the taste
of chocolate could emerge from those.
So the typical hard problem of consciousness
is that problem, right?
How do you boot up the taste of chocolate,
the experience of the taste of chocolate,
from neurons, say, or the right kind
of artificial intelligence circuitry?
How do you boot that up?
That's typically what the hard problem of consciousness
means to researchers.
Notice that I'm changing the way I think about it.
Notice that I'm changing the problem.
I'm not trying to boot up conscious experiences
from the dynamics of neurons, or silicon, or something like that.
I'm saying that that's the wrong problem.
My hard problem would go in the other direction.
If I start with conscious experiences,
how do I build up space and time?
How do I build up what I call the physical world?
How do I build up what we call brains?
Because I'm saying consciousness is not something
that brains do.
Brains are something that consciousness makes up.
It's an ephemeral experience in consciousness.
I look inside so up to be very, very clear.
Right now, I have no neurons.
If you looked, you would see neurons.
That's a data structure that you would create on the fly,
and it's a very useful one.
As soon as you look away,
you garbage collect that data structure,
just like that necr cube that I was talking about
on the piece of paper.
When you look, you see a 3D cube.
You create it on the fly.
As soon as you look away, that's gone.
When you say you, you mean a human being scientist.
Right now, that's right.
More generally, it'll be conscious agents,
because as you pointed out,
am I asking for theory of consciousness?
Only about humans, no, it's consciousness,
which human consciousness is just a tiny sliver.
But you are saying that there's a useful data structure.
How many other data structures are there?
That's why I said you human.
If there's another earth,
if there's another alien civilization
and doing these kinds of investigations,
would they come up with similar data structures?
Probably not.
What is the space of data structures,
I guess, is what I'm asking.
My guess is that if consciousness is fundamental,
if consciousness is all there is,
then the only thing that mathematical structure
can be about is possibilities of consciousness.
And that suggests to me
that there could be an infinite variety of consciousnesses.
And a vanishingly small fraction of them
use space-time data structures
and the kinds of structures that we use.
There's an infinite variety of data structures.
Now, this is very similar to something
that Max Tegmark has said, but I want to distinguish it.
He has his level four multiverse idea.
He thinks that mathematics is fundamental.
And so that's the fundamental reality.
And since there's an infinite variety of,
endless variety of mathematical structures,
there's an infinite variety of multiverses in his view.
I'm saying something similar in spirit,
but importantly different.
There's an infinite variety
of mathematical structures, absolutely.
But mathematics isn't the fundamental reality
in this framework.
Consciousness is.
And mathematics is to consciousness,
like bones are to an organism.
You need the bones.
So mathematics is not divorced from consciousness,
but it's not the entirety of consciousness by any means.
And so there's an infinite variety
of consciousnesses and signaling games
that consciousnesses could interact via.
And therefore worlds, common worlds,
data structures that they can use to communicate.
So space and time is just one of an infinite variety.
And so I think that what we'll find
is that as we go outside of our little space-time bubble,
we will encounter utterly alien forms
of conscious experience that we may not be able
to really comprehend in the following sense.
If I ask you to imagine a color
that you've never seen before, does anything happen?
Nothing happens.
Yeah, no.
Nothing happens.
And that's just one color.
I'm asking for just a color.
We actually know, by the way,
that apparently there are women called tetrafemmes
who have four color receptors, not just three.
And Kimberly Jamison and others who've studied these women
have good evidence that they apparently have
a new dimension of color experience
that the rest of us don't have.
So these women are apparently living in a world of color
that you and I can't even concretely imagine.
No man can imagine them.
Yeah.
And yet they're real color experiences.
And so in that sense, I'm saying,
now take that little baby step.
Oh, there are women who have color experiences
that I could never have.
Well, that's shocking.
Now take that infinite.
There are consciousnesses where every aspect
of their experiences is like that new color.
It's something utterly alien to you.
You have nothing like that.
And yet these are all possible varieties
of conscious experience.
When you say there's a lot of consciousnesses,
it's a singular consciousness.
Basically the set of possible experiences you can have
in that subjective way,
as opposed to the underlying mechanism.
Because you say that,
having an extra color receptor,
ability to have new experiences
that somehow a different consciousness,
is there a way to see that as all the same consciousness,
the subjectivity itself?
Right, because when we have two of these conscious agents
interacting, the mathematics,
they actually satisfy the definition of a conscious agent.
So in fact, they are a single conscious agent.
So in fact, one way to think about
what I'm saying the life I'm postulating
with my colleagues, Chaitanya and Chris
and others, Robert Prettner and so forth,
there is one big conscious agent, infinitely complicated.
But fortunately, we can, for analytic purposes,
break it down all the way to,
in some sense, the simplest conscious agent,
which has one conscious experience.
One, this one agent can experience red 35.
And that's it, that's what it experiences.
You can get all the way down to that.
So you think it's possible that consciousness,
whatever that is, is much more,
is fundamental, or at least much more
in the direction of the fundamental
than is space-time as we perceive it.
That's the proposal.
And therefore, what I have to do
in terms of the heart problem of consciousness
is to show how dynamical systems of conscious agents
could lead to what we call space and time
and neurons and brain activity.
In other words, we have to show
how you get space-time and physical objects
entirely from a theory of conscious agents
outside of space-time with the dynamics
outside of space-time.
So that's, and I can tell you how we plan to do that,
but that's the idea.
Okay, the magic of it, the chocolate is delicious.
So there's a mathematical kind of thing
that we could say here, how it can emerge
within the system of networks of conscious agents,
but is there going to be at the end of the proof
why chocolate is so delicious or no?
I guess I'm going to ask different kinds
of dumb questions to try to sneak up.
Oh, well, that's the right question.
And when I say that I took conscious experiences
as fundamental, what that means is
in the current version of my theory,
I'm not explaining conscious experiences
where they came from.
That's the miracle.
That's one of the miracles.
So I have two miracles in my theory.
There are conscious experiences like the taste of chocolate
and that there's a probabilistic relationship.
When certain conscious experiences occur,
others are more likely to occur.
Those are the two miracles that are possible
to get beyond that and somehow start to chip away
at the miracle-ness of that miracle.
That chocolate is still delicious.
I hope so.
I've got my hands full with what I'm doing right now,
but I can just say at top level
how we would think about that.
That would get at this consciousness without form.
Consciousness without form.
This is gonna be really, this is really tough
because it's consciousness without form
versus the various forms that consciousness takes
for the experiences that it has.
Right, right.
So when I write down a probability space
for these conscious experiences,
I say here's a probability space
for the possible conscious experiences, right?
It's just like when I write down a probability space
for an experiment, like I'm gonna flip a coin twice, right?
And I want to look at the probabilities
of various outcomes.
So I have to write down a probability space.
There could be heads, heads, heads, tails,
tails, heads, tails, tails.
So you before, as any class in probability,
you're told write down your probability space.
If you don't write down your probability space,
you can't get started.
So here's my probability space for consciousness.
How do I want to interpret that structure?
The structure is just sitting there.
There's gonna be a dynamics that happens on it, right?
Experiences appear and then they disappear.
Just like heads appears and disappears.
So one way to think about that fundamental probability space
is that corresponds to consciousness without any content.
The infinite consciousness that transcends
any particular content.
Well, do you think of that as a mechanism,
as a thing, like the rules that govern the dynamics
of the thing outside of space-time?
Isn't that, if you think consciousness is fundamental,
isn't that essentially getting like,
it is solving the hard problem,
which is like, from where does this thing pop up?
Which is the mechanism of the thing popping up.
Whatever the consciousness is, the different kinds
and so on, that mechanism.
And also the question I want to ask is how tricky
do you think it is to solve that problem?
You've solved a lot of difficult problems
throughout the history of humanity.
There's probably more problems to solve left
than we've solved by like an infinity.
But along that long journey of intelligent species,
when will we solve this consciousness one?
Which is one way to measure the difficulty of the problem.
So I'll give two answers.
There's one problem I think we can solve,
but we haven't solved yet.
And that is the reverse of what my colleagues
call the hard problem.
The problem of how do you start with conscious experiences
in the way that I've just described them and the dynamics
and build up space and time and brains?
That I think is a tough technical problem,
but some principle solvable.
So I think we can solve that.
So we would solve the hard problem,
not by showing how brains create consciousness,
but how networks of conscious agents
create what we call the symbols that we call brains.
So that I think, but does that allow you to,
so that's interesting, that's an interesting idea.
Consciousness creates the brain,
not the brain creates consciousness.
But does that allow you to build the thing?
My guess is that it will enable unbelievable technologies.
Once, and I'll tell you why,
I think it plugs into the work that the physicists are doing.
So this theory of consciousness will be even deeper
than the structures that the physicists are finding,
like the amplitude of a hedron.
But the other answer to your question is less positive.
As I said earlier,
I think that there is no such thing
as a theory of everything.
So that I think that the theory that my team is working on,
this conscious agent theory is just a 1.0 theory.
We're using probability of spaces and Markovian curls.
I can easily see people now saying,
well, we can do better if we go to category theory.
And we can get a deeper, perhaps more interesting.
And then someone will say,
well, now I'll go to topoi theory.
And then there'll be,
so I imagine that there'll be,
conscious agents, five, 10, 3 trillion, 0.0.
But I think it will never end.
I think ultimately this question
that we sort of put our fingers on of,
how does the formless give birth to form?
To the taste, the wonderful taste of chocolate.
I think that we will always go deeper and deeper,
but we will never solve that.
That in some sense, that will be a primitive.
I hope I'm wrong.
Maybe it's just the limits of my current imagination.
So I'll just say my imagination right now
doesn't peer that deep.
Hopefully, so by the way, I'm saying this,
I don't want to discourage some brilliant 20 year old
who then later on proves me dead wrong.
I hope to be proven dead wrong.
But just like you said, essentially from now,
everything we're saying now, everything you're saying,
all your theories will be laughing stock.
They will respect the puzzle solving abilities
and how much we were able to do was so little.
But outside of that, it will all be just,
the silliness will be entertainment for a teenager.
Especially the silliness when we thought
that we were so smart and we knew it all.
So it would be interesting to explore your ideas
by contrasting, you mentioned Annika Harris,
you mentioned Philip Goff.
So outside of, if you're not allowed to say
the fundamental disagreement is the fact
that space time is fundamental.
What are interesting distinctions between ideas
of consciousness between you and Annika, for example.
You guys have, you've been on a podcast together,
I'm sure in private, you guys have
some incredible conversations.
So where are some sticking, interesting sticking points,
some interesting disagreements, let's say with Annika first.
Maybe there'll be a few other people.
Well, Annika and I just had a conversation this morning
where we were talking about our ideas.
And what we discovered really in our conversation
was that we're pretty much on the same page.
It was really just-
About consciousness.
About consciousness, yeah.
Our ideas about consciousness are pretty much
on the same page.
She rightly has cautioned me to,
when I talk about conscious agents,
to point out that the notion of agency
is not fundamental in my theory.
The notion of self is not fundamental.
And that's absolutely true.
I can use this network of conscious agents.
This, and I now use tech as a technical term.
Conscious agents is a technical term
for that probability space with the Markovian dynamics.
I can use that to build models of a self
and to build models of agency,
but they're not fundamental.
So she has really been very helpful
in helping me to be a little bit clear about these ideas
and not say things that are misleading.
Sure.
I mean, the interesting thing about language, actually,
is that language, quite obviously,
is an interface to truth.
It's so fascinating that individual words
can have so much ambiguity
and the slight, the specific choices of a word
within a particular sentence,
within the context of a sentence,
can have so much such a difference in meaning.
It's quite fascinating,
especially when you're talking about topics
like consciousness because it's a very loaded term.
It means a lot of things to a lot of people
and the entire concept of shrouded in mystery.
So combination of the fact that it's a loaded term
and that there's a lot of mystery,
people can just interpret it in all kinds of ways.
And so you have to be both precise
and help them avoid getting stuck
on some kind of side road of miscommunication,
loss in translation because you used the wrong word.
That's interesting.
I mean, because for a lot of people,
consciousness is ultimately connected to a self.
I mean, that's our experience of consciousness
is very, it's connected to this ego.
I mean, what else could it possibly be?
I can't even, how do you begin to comprehend,
to visualize, to conceptualize a consciousness
that's not connected to like this particular organism?
I'll have a way of thinking about this whole problem now
that comes out of this framework that's different.
So we can imagine a dynamics of consciousness,
not in space and time, just abstractly.
It could be cooperative, for all we know.
It could be very friendly, I don't know.
And you can set up a dynamics, a Markovian dynamics
that is so-called stationary.
And that's a technical term,
which means that the entropy effectively is not increasing.
There is some entropy, but it's constant.
So there's no increasing entropy.
And in that sense, the dynamics is timeless.
There is no entropic time.
But it's a trivial theorem, three line proof,
that if you have a stationary Markovian dynamics,
any projection that you make of that dynamics
by conditional probability.
And if you want, I can state a little bit more,
even more mathematically precisely
for some readers or listeners.
But if any projection you take by conditional probability,
the induced image of that Markov chain
will have increasing entropy.
You will have entropic time.
So I'll be very, very precise.
I'll have a Markov chain, x1, x2 through xn,
where n goes to infinity, right?
The entropy H, capital H of xn
is equal to the entropy H of xn minus one for all n.
So the entropy is the same.
But it's a theorem that H of xn,
say given x sub one is greater than or equal to
H of xn minus one given x1.
Sure, where does the grader come from?
Because with the theorem, the three line proof,
H of xn given x1 is greater than or equal to H of xn
to H of xn given x1 and x2 because conditioning reduces.
But then H of xn minus one given x1, x2
is equal to H of xn given x2,
xn minus one given x2 by the Markov property.
And then because it's stationary,
it's equal to H of x,
and I have to write it down next in my,
I have to write, anyway, there's a three line proof.
Sure.
So what, but the assumption of stationarity,
we're using a lot of terms that people won't understand.
Right, right.
It doesn't matter.
So there's some kind of, some Markovian dynamics
is basically trying to model some kind of system
with some probabilities and there's agents
and they interact in some kind of way.
And you can say something about that system
as it evolves, stationarity.
So stationary system is one that has certain properties
in terms of entropy very well,
but we don't know if it's stationary or not.
We don't know what the properties.
Right.
You see, you have to kind of take assumptions and see,
okay, well, what does the systems behave like
under these different properties?
The more constraints, the more assumptions you take,
the more predictive,
the more interesting, powerful things you can say,
but sometimes they're limiting.
That said, we're talking about consciousness here.
How does that, you said cooperative, okay, competitive.
It just, I like chocolate.
I'm sitting here, I have a brain, I'm wearing a suit.
It sure as hell feels like I'm myself.
Right.
What am I tuning in, am I plugging into something?
Am I a projection, a simple trivial projection
into space time from some much larger organism
that I can't possibly comprehend?
How the hell, you're saying some,
you're building up mathematical intuitions, fine, great.
But I'm just, I'm having an existential crisis here
and I'm gonna die soon.
We'll all die pretty quickly.
So I wanna figure out why chocolate is so delicious.
So help me out here.
So let's just keep sneaking up to this.
Right, so the whole technical thing was to say this.
Even if the dynamics of consciousness is stationary,
so that there is no entropic time,
any projection of it, any view of it
will have the artifact of entropic time.
That's a limited resource.
Limited resources, so that the fundamental dynamics
may have no limits, limited resources whatsoever.
Any projection will have certainly time
as a limited resource and probably a lot of other
limited resources.
Hence we could get competition and evolution
and nature, red and tooth and claw
as an artifact of a deeper system
in which those aren't fundamental.
And in fact, I take it as something
that this theory must do at some point
is to show how networks of conscious agents,
even if they're not resource limited,
give rise to evolution of a natural selection
via a projection.
Yeah, but you're saying, I'm trying to understand
how the limited resources that give rise to,
so first the thing gives rise to time,
it gives rise to limited resource, it gives rise
to evolution by natural selection,
how that has to do with the fact that chocolate is delicious.
Well, it's not gonna do that directly,
it's gonna get to this notion of self.
Oh, it's gonna give you-
The notion of self.
Oh, the evolution gives you the notion of self.
And also of a self separate from other selves.
So the idea would be that-
It's competition has life and death
and all those kinds of things.
That's right, so it won't, I don't think,
as I said, I don't think that I can tell you
how the formless gives rise to the experience of chocolate.
Right now, my current theory says
that's one of the miracles I'm assuming.
Yeah.
So my theory can't do it.
And the reason my theory can't do it
is because Hoffman's brain can't do it right now.
But the notion of self, yes,
the notion of self can be an artifact
of the projection of it.
So there's one conscious agent,
because anytime conscious agents interact,
they form a new conscious agent.
So there's one conscious agent.
Any projection of that one conscious agent
gives rise to time,
even if there wasn't any time in that one conscious agent.
And it gives rise, I want to,
I haven't proven this.
So this is, so now this is me guessing
where the theory is gonna go.
I haven't done this, there's no paper on this yet.
So now I'm speculating, my guess is I'll be able to show
or my brighter colleagues working with me
will be able to show that we will get evolution
of a natural selection, the notion of individual selves,
individual physical objects and so forth
coming out as a projection of this thing.
And that the self, this then will be really interesting
in terms of how it starts to interact
with certain spiritual traditions, right?
Where they will say that there is a notion of self
that needs to be let go, which is this finite self
that's competing with other selves
to get more money and prestige and so forth.
That self in some sense has to die,
but there's a deeper self, which is the timeless being
that precludes, that precedes, not precludes,
but precedes any particular conscious experiences,
the ground of all experience.
That there's that notion of a deep capital self,
but our little capital lowercase s selves
could be artifacts of projection.
And it may be that what consciousness is doing
in this framework is projected itself down
into a self that calls itself Don
and a self that calls itself Lex.
And through conversations like this,
it's trying to find out about itself
and eventually transcend the limits
of the Don and Lex little icons that it's using
and that little projection of itself.
Through this conversation, it's somehow,
it's learning about itself.
So that thing dressed me up today
in order to understand itself.
And in some sense, you and I are not separate from that thing
and we're not separate from each other.
Yeah, well, I have to question the fashion choices
on my end then.
All right, so you mentioned you agree in terms of consciousness
on a lot of things with Anika.
Is there somebody friend or friendly foe
that you disagree with in some nuanced, interesting way
or some major way about consciousness,
about these topics of reality that you return to often?
It's like Christopher Hitchens with Rabbi David Wolpe
have had interesting conversations through years
that added to the complexity and the beauty
of their friendship.
Is there somebody like that
that over the years has been a source of disagreement
with you that strengthen your ideas?
My ideas have been really shaped by several things.
One is the physicalist framework
that my scientific colleagues almost to a person
have adopted and that I adopted too.
Until the reason I walked away from it was
because it became clear that we couldn't start
with unconscious ingredients and Buddha consciousness.
Can you define physicalist in contrast to reductionist?
So a physicalist I would say is someone who takes space time
and the objects within space time
as ontologically fundamental.
Right, and then reductionist is saying the smaller
and the more fundamental.
That's a methodological thing.
That's saying within space time
as you go to smaller and smaller scales in space,
you get deeper and deeper laws, more and more fundamental
laws and the reduction of temperature
to particle movement was an example of that.
But I think that the reason that worked
was almost an artifact of the nature of our interface.
That was for a long time,
and your colleagues, including yourself or physicalist
and now you broke away.
Broke away because I think you can't start
with unconscious ingredients and Buddha consciousness.
And so even with Roger Penrose
where there's like a gray area.
Right, and here's the challenge I would put
to all of my friends and colleagues
who are give one specific conscious experience
that you can boot up, right?
So if you think that it's integrated information
and I've asked this of Julia Tononi a couple of times
back in the 90s and then just a couple of years ago,
I asked Julia, okay, so great integrated information.
So we're all interested in explaining
some specific conscious experiences.
So what is pick one, the taste of chocolate?
What is the integrated information precise structure
that we need for chocolate and why does that structure
have to be for chocolate and why is it
that it could not possibly be vanilla?
Is there any, I asked them, is there any one
specific conscious experience that you can account for?
Because notice they've set themselves the task
of booting up conscious experiences from physical systems.
That's the task they've set themselves.
But that doesn't mean they're,
I understand your intuition, but that doesn't mean
they're wrong just because they can't find a way
to boot it up yet.
That's right.
No, that doesn't mean that they're wrong.
It just means that they haven't done it.
I think it's principled, the reason is principled,
but I'm happy that they're exploring it.
But the fact is, the remarkable fact is
there's not one theory, so integrated information theory,
orchestrated collapse of microtubules,
global workspace theory.
These are all theories of consciousness.
These are all theories of consciousness.
There's not a single theory that can give you
a specific conscious experience that they say,
here is the physical dynamics or the physical structure
that must be the taste of chocolate
or whatever one they want.
So you're saying it's impossible.
They're saying it's just hard.
Yeah.
My attitude is, okay, no one said you had to start
with neurons or physical systems and boot up conscious.
You guys are just taking that.
You chose that problem.
So since you chose that problem,
how much progress have you made?
Well, when you've not been able to come up
with a single specific conscious experience,
and you've had these brilliant people working on it
for decades now, that's not really good progress.
Let me ask you to play devil's advocate.
Can you try to steal man,
steal man meaning argue the best possible case
for reality, the opposite of your book title?
So, or maybe just stick into consciousness.
Can you take the physicalist view?
Can you steal man the physicalist view
for a brief moment playing devil's advocate too?
Or steal man the person you used to be.
Right, right.
The physicalist.
What's the good, like saying that you might be wrong
right now, what would be a convincing argument for that?
Well, I think the argument I would give
and that I believed was, look,
when you have very simple physical systems,
like a piece of dirt, there's not much evidence
of life for consciousness.
It's only when you get really complicated
physical systems like that have brains.
And really, the more complicated the brains,
the more it looks like there's consciousness
and the more complicated that consciousness is.
Surely that means that simple physical systems
don't create much consciousness, if maybe not any,
or maybe if panps like this,
they create the most elementary kinds
of simple conscious experiences.
But you need more complicated physical systems
to boot up, to create more complicated consciousnesses.
I think that's the intuition
that drives most of my colleagues.
And you're saying that this concept of complexity
is ill-defined when you ground it to space-time.
Oh, I think it's well-defined
within the framework of space-time, right?
No, it's ill-defined relative to what you need
to actually understand consciousness
because you're grounding complexity in just in space-time.
Oh, got you, right, right.
Yeah, what I'm saying is if it were true
that space-time was fundamental,
then I would have to agree
that if there is such a thing as consciousness,
given the data that we've got
that complex brains have consciousness
and dirt doesn't,
that somehow it's the complexity of the dynamics
or organization, the function of the physical system
that somehow is creating the consciousness.
So under those assumptions, yes,
but when the physicists themselves
are telling us that space-time is not fundamental,
then I can understand.
See, then the whole picture starts to come into focus.
Why, my colleagues are brilliant, right?
These are really smart people.
I mean, Francis Crick worked on this
for the last 20 years of his life.
These are not stupid people.
These are brilliant, brilliant people.
The fact that we've come up
with not a single specific conscious experience
that we can explain.
And no hope, there's no one that says,
oh, I'm really close.
I'll have it for you in a year.
No, there's just like, there's this fundamental gap.
So much so that Steve Pinker in one of his writings says,
look, he likes the global workspace theory,
but he says the last dollop of the theory
in which there's something it's like to,
he says we may have to just stipulate that as a brute fact.
And Pinker is brilliant, right?
He understands the state of play
on this problem of the hard problem of consciousness,
starting with physicalist assumptions
and then trying to boot up consciousness.
When you've set yourself the problem,
I'm starting with physical stuff that's not conscious.
I'm trying to get the taste of chocolate out
as maybe some kind of function of the dynamics of that.
We've not been able to do that.
And so Pinker is saying, we may have to punt.
We may have to just stipulate that last bit.
He calls it the last dollop.
And just say, stipulate it as a bare fact of nature
that there is something it's like.
Well, from my point of view as the physical,
the whole point, the whole promise of the physicalist
was we wouldn't have to stipulate.
I was going to start with the physical stuff
and explain where the consciousness came from.
If I'm going to stipulate consciousness,
why don't I just stipulate consciousness
and not stipulate all the physical stuff too?
So I'm stipulating less.
I'm saying, okay, I agree.
We think the panpsychist perspective.
Well, it's actually what I call the conscious realist
perspective, panpsychists are effectively dualists, right?
They're saying there's physical stuff
that really is fundamental and then consciousness stuff.
So I would go with Pinker and say, look,
let's just stipulate the consciousness stuff,
but I'm not going to stipulate the physical stuff.
I'm going to actually now show how to boot up the physical
stuff from just the consciousness stuff.
So I'll stipulate less.
Is it possible?
So if you stipulate less, is it possible
for our limited brains to visualize reality
as we delve deeper and deeper and deeper,
is it possible to visualize somehow?
With the tools of math, with the tools of computers,
with the tools of our mind, are we hopelessly lost?
You said there's ways to intuit
what's true using mathematics and probability,
and sort of Markovian dynamics, all that kind of stuff,
but that's not visualizing.
That's what's the kind of building intuition,
but is it possible to visualize in the way
we visualize so nicely in space time,
in four dimensions, in three dimensions?
Sorry, well, we really are looking through
a two-dimensional screen until it's what we intuit
to be a three-dimensional world
and also inferring dynamic stuff, making it 4D.
Anyway, is it possible to visualize some pretty pictures
that give us a deeper sense of the truth of reality?
I think that we will incrementally be able to do that.
I think that, for example, the picture that we have
of electrons and photons interacting and scattering,
it may have not been possible until Faraday
did all of his experiments,
and then Maxwell wrote down his equations,
and we were then sort of forced by his equations
to think in a new way.
And then when Planck, in 1900,
now desperate to try to solve the problem
of black-body radiation,
of what they call the ultraviolet catastrophe,
where Newton was predicting infinite energies,
where there weren't infinite energies
in black-body radiation.
And he, in desperation, proposed packets of energy.
Then once you've done that,
and then you have an Einstein come along five years later
and show how that explains the photoelectric effect.
And then eventually, in 1926, you get quantum theory.
And then you get this whole new way of thinking
that was, from the Newtonian point of view,
completely contradictory and counterintuitive, certainly.
And maybe if Giesen is right, not contradictory.
Maybe if you use intuition as math, they're not contradictory.
But still, certainly you wouldn't have gone there.
And so here's a case where the experiments
and then a desperate mathematical move,
sort of we use those as a flashlight into the deep fog.
And so that science may be the flashlight
into the deep fog.
I wonder if it's still possible to visualize
in the, like we talk about consciousness
in, from a self-perspective experience it.
Hold that idea in our mind,
where you can experience things directly.
We've evolved to experience things in this 3D world.
And that's a very rich experience.
When you're thinking mathematically,
you still, in the end of the day,
have to project it down to a low-dimensional space
to make conclusions.
Their conclusions will be a number,
our line, our plot, our visual.
So I wonder like how we can really touch
some deep truth in a subjective way, like experience it.
Really feel the beauty of it,
in the way that humans feel beauty.
Right, are we screwed?
I don't think we're screwed.
I think that we get little hints of it
from psychedelic drugs and so forth.
We get hints that there are certain interventions
that we can take on our interface.
I apply this chemical,
which is just some element of my interface,
to this other, to a brain, I ingest it.
And all of a sudden,
I seem like I've opened new portals
into conscious experiences.
Well, that's very, very suggestive.
That's like the black body radiation
doing something that we didn't expect, right?
It doesn't go to infinity
when we thought it was gonna go to infinity
and we're forced to propose these quanta.
So, once we have a theory of conscious agents
and is projection dispaced on them,
I should sketch what I think that projection is.
But then I think we can then start
to ask specific questions.
When you're taking DMT,
or you're taking LSD or something like that,
now that we have this deep model,
we've reverse engineered space and time
in physical particles,
we've pulled them back to this theory of conscious agents.
Now we can ask ourselves in this idealized future,
what are we doing to conscious agents
when we apply 5MEO DMT?
What are we doing?
Are we opening a new portal, right?
So, when I say that, I mean,
I have a portal into consciousness
that I call my body of Lex Friedman that I'm creating.
And it's a genuine portal, not perfect,
but it's a genuine portal.
I'm definitely communicating with your consciousness.
And we know that we have one technology
for building new portals.
We know one technology and that is having kids.
Having kids is how we build new portals into consciousness.
It takes a long time.
Can you elaborate that?
Oh, oh, oh, you mean like...
Your son and your daughter didn't exist.
That was a portal.
You're having contact with consciousness
that you never would have had before,
but now you've got a son or a daughter,
you had, you went through this physical process,
they were born, then you, there was all the...
But is that portal yours?
So, when you have kids, are you creating new portals
that are completely distinct from the portals
that you've created with other consciousness?
Like, can you elaborate on that?
To which degree are the consciousness
of your kids a part of you?
Well, so every person that I see,
that symbol that I see, the body that I see,
is a portal potentially for me to interact
with the consciousness.
And each consciousness has a unique character,
and we call it a personality and so forth.
So, with each new kid that's born,
we come in contact with a personality
that we've never seen before,
and a version of consciousness
that we've never seen before.
At a deeper level, as I said,
the theory says there's one agent.
So, this is a different projection of that one agent.
But, so that's what I mean by a portal is,
within my own interface, my own projection,
can I see other projections of that one consciousness?
So, can I get portals in that sense?
And I think we will get a theory of that,
that we will get a theory of portals,
and then we can ask how the psychedelics are acting.
Are they actually creating new portals or not?
If they're not, we should nevertheless,
then understand how we could create a new portal, right?
Maybe we have to just study,
what happens when we have kids?
We know that that technology creates new portals.
So, we have to reverse engineer that,
and then say, okay, could we somehow
create new portals de novo?
With something like a brain-computer interfaces,
for example.
Yeah, well, maybe just a chemical or something like that.
It's probably more complicated than a chemical.
That's why I think that the psychedelics,
the psychedelics may,
because they might be affecting this portal
in certain ways that it turns it around and opens up.
Whereas it may be, once we understand,
but this thing is a portal, your body is a portal,
and understand all of its complexities,
maybe we'll realize that that portal can be shifted
and to different parts of the deeper consciousness,
and give new windows on it.
And so, in that way, maybe, yes,
psychedelics could open up new portals,
in the sense that they're taking something
that's already a complex portal
and just tweaking it a bit.
Well, but creating is a very powerful
difference between morphing.
Right, right, tweaking versus creating, I agree.
But maybe it gives you intuition
to at least the full space of the kinds of things
that this particular system is capable of.
I mean, the idea, your idea of the consciousness
creates brains, I mean, that breaks my brain,
because, you know, I guess I'm still a physicalist
in that sense, because it's just much easier
to intuit the world.
It's very, it's practical to think,
all right, there's a neural network,
and what are the different ways fascinating
capabilities can emerge from this neural network?
I agree, it's easier.
And so you start to, and then present to yourself
the problem of, okay, well, how does consciousness arise?
How does intelligence arise?
How does emotion arise?
How does memory arise in the,
how do we filter within the system
all the incoming sensory information we're able to
allocate attention in different interesting ways?
How do all those mechanisms arise?
To say that there's other fundamental things
we don't understand outside of space-time
that are actually core to how this whole thing works
is a bit paralyzing, because it's like,
oh, we're not 10% done.
We're like 0.001% done.
Well, I certainly understand that.
My attitude about it is,
if you look at the young physicists
who are searching for these structures beyond space-time,
like, episode 8 and so forth,
they're having a ball.
Space-time, that's what the old folks did.
That's what the older generation did.
We're doing something that really is fun and new,
and they're having a blast,
and they're finding all these new structures.
So I think that we're going to
succeed in getting a new deeper theory.
I can just say what I'm hoping with the theory
that I'm working on.
I'm hoping to show that I could have
this timeless dynamics of consciousness,
no entropic time.
I take a projection, and I show how this timeless dynamics
looks like the Big Bang,
and the entire evolution of space-time.
In other words, I see how my whole space-time interface...
So not just the projection doesn't just look like space-time.
You can explain with it the whole,
from the origin of the universe.
That's what we have to do,
and that's what the physicists understand.
When they go beyond space-time to the amplitude
and the cosmological polytope,
they ultimately know that they have to get back
the Big Bang story and the whole evolution,
that whole story where there were no living things.
There was just a point, and then the explosion,
and then just particles at high energy,
and then eventually the cooling down,
and then the differentiation,
and finally matter, condensers,
and then life, and then consciousness.
That whole story has to come out of something
that's deeper and without time,
and that's what we're up to.
That's what we want to get to.
So the whole story that we've been telling ourselves
about Big Bang and how brains evolve in consciousness
will come out of a much deeper theory.
And for someone like me, it's a lot.
But for the younger generation,
this is like, oh, wow, all the low cherries aren't picked.
This is really good stuff.
This is really new, fundamental stuff that we can do.
So I can't wait to read the papers
of the younger generation, and I want to see them.
Kids these days with their non-spacetime assumptions.
It's just interesting looking at the philosophical tradition
of those difficult ideas you struggle with.
If you look like somebody like Emmanuel Kant,
what are some interesting agreements and disagreements
you have with a guy about the nature of reality?
So there's a lot in agreement.
So Kant was an idealist, transcendental idealist,
and he basically had the idea
that we don't see nature as it is.
We impose a structure on nature.
And so in some sense, I'm saying something similar.
I'm saying that, by the way,
I don't call myself an idealist.
I call myself a conscious realist
because idealism has a long history,
a lot of different ideas come under idealism,
and there's a lot of debates and so forth.
It tends to be identified with, in many cases,
anti-science and anti-realism.
And I don't want either connection with my ideas.
And so I just called my conscious realism
with an emphasis on realism, and not anti-realism.
But one place where I would, of course,
disagree with Kant was that he thought
that Euclidean spacetime was a priori.
We just know that that's false.
So he went too far on that.
But in general, the idea that we don't start
with spacetime, that spacetime is, in some sense,
the forms of our perceptions.
Yes, absolutely.
And I would say that there's a lot in common
with Berkeley in that regard.
There's a lot of ingenious arguments in Berkeley.
Leibniz, in his monodology,
understood very clearly that the hard problem
was not solvable.
He posed a hard problem and basically dismissed it,
and just said, you can't do this.
And so if he came here and saw where we are,
he'd say, look, guys, I told you this 300 years ago.
And he had his monodology.
He was trying to do something like,
it's different from what I'm doing,
but he had these things that were not in spacetime,
these monads.
He was trying to build something,
I'm trying to build a theory of conscious agents.
My guess is that if he came here,
I could just, if he saw what I was doing,
he would say, he would understand it
and immediately take off with it
and go places that I couldn't.
He would have no problems.
So there would be, right,
there would be overlap of the spirit
of the ideas would be totally overlapping.
But his genius would then just run with it
far faster than I could.
I love the humility here.
So let me ask you about sort of practical implications
of your ideas to our world,
our complicated world.
When you look at the big questions of humanity,
of hate, war,
what else is there?
Evil, maybe there's the positive aspects of that,
of meaning, of love.
What is the fact that reality is an illusion?
Perceived, what is the conscious realism
when applied to daily life?
What kind of impact does it have?
A lot.
And it's sort of scary.
We all know that life is ephemeral.
And spiritual traditions have said,
wake up to the fact that, you know,
anything that you do here is going to disappear.
But it's even more ephemeral than perhaps we've thought.
I see this bottle because I create it right now.
As soon as I look away,
that data structure has been garbage collected.
That bottle, I have to recreate it every time I look.
So I spend all my money on it, I buy this fancy car.
That car, I have to keep recreating it
every time I look at it.
It's that ephemeral.
So all the things that we invest ourselves in,
we fight over, we kill each other over,
we have wars over, these are all,
it's like people in a virtual reality simulation, right?
And there's this Porsche.
We all see the Porsche.
Well, that Porsche exists when I look at it.
I turn my headset and I look at it.
And then if Joe turns his headset the right way,
he'll see his Porsche,
but it's not even the same Porsche that I see.
He's creating his own Porsche.
So these things are exceedingly ephemeral.
And now, just imagine saying that that's my Porsche.
Well, you can agree to say that it's your Porsche,
but really the Porsche only exists as long as you look.
So this all of a sudden,
what the spiritual traditions have been saying
for a long, long time,
this gets cashed out in mathematically precise science.
It's saying ephemeral, yes, in fact,
it lasts for a few milliseconds,
a few hundred milliseconds while you look at it,
and then it's gone.
So the whole idea,
why are we fighting?
Why do we hate?
It's, we fight over possessions
because we think that we're small little objects
inside this pre-existing space time.
We assume that that mansion and that car
exists independent of us and that somehow
we, these little things can have our sense of self
and importance enhanced by having that special car
or that special house or that special person.
In fact, it's just the opposite.
You create that mansion every time you look.
That's, you're something far deeper than that mansion.
You're the entity which can create that mansion on the fly.
And there's nothing to the mansion
except what you create in this moment.
So all of a sudden, when you take this point of view,
it has all sorts of implications
for how we interact with each other,
how we treat each other.
And again, a lot of things that spiritual traditions
have said, it's a mixed bag.
Spiritual traditions are a mixed bag.
So let me just be right up front about that.
I'm not promoting any particular,
but they do have some insights.
Yeah, they have wisdom.
They have certain wisdom.
They have, I can point to nonsense,
I won't go into it,
but I can also point to lots of nonsense.
So the issue is to then to look for the key insights.
And I think they have a lot of insights
about the ephemeral nature of objects in space and time
and not being attached to them, including our own bodies.
And reversing that I'm not this little thing,
a little consciousness trapped in the body.
And the consciousness itself is only a product of the body.
So when the body dies, the consciousness disappears.
It turns completely around.
The consciousness is fundamental.
The body, my hand exists right now
because I'm looking at it.
My hand is gone. I have no hand.
I have no brain. I have no heart.
If you looked, you'll see a heart.
Whatever I am is this really complicated thing
in consciousness.
That's what I am.
All the stuff that I thought I was
is something that I create on the fly and delete.
So this is completely a radical restructuring
of how we think about possessions,
about identity, about survival of death, and so forth.
This is completely transformative.
But the nice thing is that this whole approach
of consciousness agents, unlike the spiritual traditions,
which have said, in some cases, similar things,
they've said it imprecisely, this is mathematics.
We can actually now begin to state precisely,
here's a mathematical model of consciousness,
conscious agents, here's how it maps onto space time,
which I should sketch really briefly.
And here's why things are ephemeral.
And here's why you shouldn't be worried
about the ephemeral nature of things
because you're not a little tiny entity
inside space and time, quite the opposite.
You're the author of space and time.
The I and the am and the I am is all kind of emergent
through this whole process of evolution and so on.
That's just surface waves and there's a much deeper ocean
that we're trying to figure out here.
So how does you said some of the stuff here,
thinking about maps to space time,
how does it map to space time?
So just a very, very high level, and I'll keep it brief.
The structures that the physicists are finding,
like the amplitude heatron,
it turns out they're just static structure,
they're polytopes.
But they, remarkably, most of the information in them
is contained in permutation matrices.
So it's a matrix, like an end-by-end matrix
that just has zeros and ones.
That contains almost all of the information.
And you can, they have these plabbit graphs and so forth
that they use to boot up the scattering.
You can compute those scattering amplitudes
almost entirely from these permutation matrices.
So that's just, now from my point of view,
I have this conscious agent dynamics.
It turns out that the stationary dynamics
that I was talking about, where the entropy is increasing,
all the stationary dynamics are sketched out
by permutation matrices.
So there's so-called Birkhoff polytope.
All of the vertices of this polytope,
all the points are permutation matrices.
All the internal points are Markovian kernels
that have the uniform measure as a stationary measure.
Now I need to intuit a little better
what the heck you're talking about,
but so basically there's some complicated thing going on
with the network of conscious agents,
and that's mappable to this,
you're saying it to dimensional matrix
that scattering has to do with what?
Without a perception like that's like photon stuff.
I mean, I don't know if it's useful
to sort of dig into detail.
I'll do just the high level thing.
Yes.
So the high level is the long-term behavior
of the conscious agent dynamics.
So that's the projection of just looking
at the long-term behavior.
I'm hoping we'll give rise to the amplitude Hadron.
The amplitude Hadron then gives rise to space time.
So then I can just use their link
to go all the way from consciousness through its asymptotics
to through the amplitude Hadron into space time
and get the map all the way into our interface.
And that's why you mentioned the permutation matrix
because it gives you a nice thing to try to generate.
That's right.
It's the connection with the amplitude Hadron.
The permutation matrices are the core of the amplitude Hadron
and it turns out they're the core
of the asymptotic description of the conscious agents.
So not to sort of bring up the idea of a creator,
but I like, first of all, I like video games
and you mentioned this kind of simulation idea.
First of all, do you think of it as an interesting idea,
this thought experiment that will live in a simulation?
And in general, do you think we'll live in a simulation?
So the Nick Bostrom's idea about the simulation
is typically couched in a physicalist framework.
Yes.
So there is the bottom level.
There's some programmer in a physical space time
and they have a computer that they've programmed
really cleverly where they've created conscious entities.
So you have the hard problem of consciousness, right?
The standard hard problem,
how could a computer simulation create a conscious,
which isn't explained by that simulation theory.
But then the idea is that the next level,
the entities that are created in the first level simulation
then can write their own simulations
and you get this nesting.
So the idea that this is a simulation is fine,
but the idea that it starts with a physicalist base,
I think, isn't for this.
There's different properties here, the partial rendering.
And to me, that's the interesting idea
is not whether the entirety of the universe is simulated,
but how efficiently can you create interfaces
that are convincing to all other entities
that can appreciate such interfaces?
How little does it take?
Because you said like partial rendering
or like temporal, ephemeral rendering of stuff,
only render the tree falling in the forest
when there's somebody there to see it.
It's interesting to think,
how can you do that superficially
without having to render everything?
And that to me is one perspective on the simulation,
just like it is with video games.
Where a video game doesn't have to render every single thing,
it's just the thing that the observer is looking at.
Right, there is actually, that's a very nice question.
And there's whole groups of researchers
that are actually studying in virtual reality,
what is the sort of the minimal requirements
on the system, how does it have to operate
to give you an immersion experience,
to give you the feeling that you have a body
to get you to take it real.
And there's actually a lot of really good work
on that right now.
And it turns out it doesn't take that much.
You do need to get the perception action loop tight
and you have to give them the perceptions
that they're expecting, if you want them to.
But if you, you can lead them along,
if you give them perceptions
that are close to what they're expecting,
you can then maybe move their reality around a bit.
Yeah, it's a trick engineering problem,
especially when you're trying to create a product
that costs little, but that's,
it feels like an engineering problem,
not a deeply scientific problem.
Or meaning obviously it's a scientific problem,
but as a scientific problem,
it's not that difficult to trick us descendants of apes.
But here's a case for just us in our own,
if this is a virtual reality
that we're experiencing right now.
So here's something you can try for yourself.
If you just close your eyes
and look at your experience in front of you,
to be aware of your experience in front of you,
what you experience is just like a modeled dark gray,
where there's all sort of,
there's some dynamics to it, but it's just dark gray.
But now I ask you,
instead of having your attention forward,
put your attention backward.
What is it like behind you with your eyes closed?
And there it's like nothing.
It's real.
So what is going on here?
What, what am I experiencing back there?
Right?
It's, I don't know if it's nothing.
It's like, I guess it's the absence of,
it's not even like darkness or something.
It's not even darkness.
There's no, there's no qualia to it.
And yet there is a sense of being.
And that's the interesting thing.
There's a sense of being back.
So I close my, put my attention forward.
I have the quality of a gray model thing.
But when I put my attention backward,
there is no quality at all,
but there is a sense of being.
Yeah.
I personally, now you haven't been to that side of the room.
I have been to that side of the room.
So for me, memories, I start,
I started playing the engine of memory replay,
which is like, I take myself back in time
and think about that place where I was hanging out
in that part.
And that's when I see what I'm behind.
So that's an interesting quirk of humans too.
We're able to, we're collecting these experiences
and we can replay them in interesting ways
whenever we feel like it.
And it's almost like being there,
but not really, but almost.
That's right.
And yet we can go our entire lives in this.
You're talking about the minimal thing for VR.
We can go our entire lives and not realize
that all of my life, it's been like nothing behind me.
Yeah.
We're not even aware that all of our lives,
if you just for the, just pay attention,
close your eyes, pay attention to what's behind me,
you're like, oh, holy smoke.
It's sort of scary.
I mean, it's like nothing.
There's no quality of there at all.
How did I not notice that my entire life?
We're so immersed in the simulation, we buy it so much.
Yeah.
I mean, you could see this with children, right?
Though with persistence, you know,
you could do the peek-a-boo game.
You can hide from them and appear
and they're fully tricked.
And in the same way, we're fully tricked.
There's nothing behind us and we assume there is.
And that's really interesting.
These theories are pretty heavy.
You as a human being, as a mortal human being.
How has these theories been to you personally?
Like are there good days and bad days
when you wake up and look in the mirror
and the fact that you can't see anything behind you?
The fact that it's rendered.
Like is there interesting quirks, you know,
Nietzsche with his, if you gaze long into the abyss,
the abyss gazes into you.
How's this theories, these ideas change you as a person?
It's been very, very difficult.
The stuff is not just abstract theory building
because it's about us.
Sometimes I've realized that there's this big division of me.
My mind is doing all this science
and coming with these conclusions.
And the rest of me is not integrating.
I was just like, I don't believe it.
I just don't believe this.
So as I start to take it seriously,
I get scared myself.
It's like, but it's very much,
then I read these spiritual traditions
and realize they're saying very, very similar things.
It's like there's a lot of convergence.
So for me, I have, the first time I thought
it might be possible that we're not seeing the truth
was in 1986.
It was from some mathematics we were doing.
And when that hit me, it hit me like a ton of bricks.
I had to sit down.
It was, it really, it was scary.
It was really a shock to the system.
And then to realize that everything
that has been important to me, like, you know,
getting a house, getting a car,
getting a reputation and so forth.
Well, that car is just like the car I see
in the virtual reality.
It sits there when you perceive it and it's not there.
So the whole question of, you know,
what am I doing and why?
What's worthwhile doing in life?
Clearly, getting a big house and getting a big car.
I mean, we all knew that we were gonna die.
So we tend not to know that.
We tend to hide it, especially when we were young.
Before age 30, we don't believe we're gonna die.
Yeah, we factually maybe know
that you kind of are supposed to, yeah.
But they'll figure something out
and we'll believe the generation
that is the first one that doesn't have to die.
That's the kind of thing.
But when you really face the fact that you're going to die,
and then when I start to look at it from this point of view
that, well, this thing was an interface to begin with.
So what I'm really, is what I'm really gonna be doing,
just taking off a headset.
So I've been playing in a virtual reality game all day.
And I got lost in the game
when I was fighting over a Porsche.
And I shot some guys up and I punctured their tires
and by got the Porsche.
Now I take the headset off and what was that for?
Nothing.
It was just, it was a data structure
and the data structure is gone.
So all of the wars, the fighting and the reputations
and all this stuff, you know, it's just a headset.
So now, and so my theory says that intellectually,
intellectually, my mind, my emotions
rebel all over the place.
It's like, you know, and so I have to meditate a lot.
What percent of the day would you say you spend
as a physicalist sort of living life,
pretending your car matters, your reputation matters?
Like how much was that Tom Wade song?
I like my town with a little drop of poison.
How much poison do you allow yourself to have?
I think my default mode is physicalist.
I think that that's just the default.
When I'm not being conscious, consciously attentive.
It's intellectually consciously attentive.
Cause if you're just, you're still,
if you're tasting coffee and not thinking
or drinking or just taking it in the sunset,
you're not being intellectual,
but you're still experiencing it.
So it's when you turn on the introspective machine,
that's when you can start.
And turn off the thinker.
When I actually just start looking without thinking.
So that's when I feel like I,
all of a sudden I'm starting to see through.
Sort of like, okay, part of the addiction
to the interface is all the stories I'm telling about it.
It's really important for me to get that,
really important to do that.
So I'm telling all these stories.
So I'm all wrapped up.
Almost all of the mind stuff that's going on in my head
is about attachment to the interface.
And so what I found is that the essentially
the only way to really detach from the interface
is to literally let go of thoughts altogether.
And then all of a sudden, even my identity,
my whole history, my name, my education,
and all this stuff is almost irrelevant
because it's just now here is the present moment.
And this is the reality right now.
And all of that other stuff is an interface story.
But this conscious experience right now,
this is the only, this is the only reality as far as I can tell.
The rest of it's a story.
And, but that is, again, not my default.
That is, I have to make a really conscious choice
to say, okay, I know intellectually this is all an interface.
I'm gonna take the headset off and so forth.
And then immediately sink back into the game
and just be out there playing the game
and get lost in it.
So I'm always lost in the game
unless I literally consciously choose to stop thinking.
Isn't it terrifying to acknowledge that,
to look beyond the game?
Isn't it?
Scares the hell out of me.
It really is scary because I'm so attached.
I'm attached to this body.
I'm attached to the interface.
Are you ever worried about breaking your brain a bit?
Meaning like, it's a,
I mean, some of these ideas when you think about reality,
even with like Einstein,
just realizing, you said interface,
just realizing that light,
you know, that there's a speed of light
and you can't go fast on the speed of light
and like what kind of things black holes
and can do with light.
Even that can mess with your head.
Yes.
But that's still space time.
That's a big mess, but it's still just space time.
It's still a property of our interface.
That's right.
But it's still like, even Einstein realized
that this particular thing,
some of the stories you tell ourselves
is constructing interfaces
that are oversimplifying the way things work.
Because it's nice, the stories are nice.
The stories are nice.
I mean, it's just like video games.
They're nice.
Right.
But Einstein was a realist, right?
He was a famous realist in the sense
that he was very explicit in a 1935 paper
with Podolski and Rosen, the EPR paper,
where he, they said,
if without in any way disturbing a system,
I can predict with probability one,
the outcome of a measurement,
then there exists in reality that element, right?
That value, that,
and we now know from quantum theory that that's false.
That Einstein's idea of local realism
is strictly speaking false.
Yeah.
And so we can predict,
we can set up in quantum theory, you can set up,
and there's a paper by Chris Fuchs,
quantum Bayesianism, where he scouts this out.
He was done by the people, but he gives a good presentation
of this where they have a sequence of like something
like nine different quantum measurements that you can make.
And you can predict with probability one,
what a particular outcome will be,
but you can actually prove that it's impossible
that the value existed before you made the measurement.
So you know with probability one, what you're gonna get,
which you also know with certainty
that that value was not there until you made the measurement.
So we know from quantum theory
that the act of observation is an act of fact creation.
And that is built into what I'm saying
with this theory of consciousness.
If consciousness is fundamental,
space time itself is an act of fact creation.
It's an interface that we create,
consciousness creates, plus all the objects in it.
So local realism is not true.
Quantum theory is established,
also non-contextual realism is not true.
And that fits in perfectly with this idea
that consciousness is fundamental.
These things exist as data structures when we create them.
As Chris Fuchs says, the act of observation
is an act of fact creation.
But I must say on a personal level,
I spend a couple hours a day
just sitting in meditation on this
and facing the rebellion
in me that feels like it goes to the core of my being,
rebelling against these ideas.
So it's very, very interesting for me to look at this
because so here I'm a scientist and I'm a person.
The science is really clear.
Local realism is false.
Non-contextual realism is false.
Space time is doomed.
It's very, very clear.
It couldn't be clearer.
And my emotions rebel left and right.
When I sit there and say, okay,
I am not something in space and time.
And something inside of me says, you're crazy.
Of course you are.
And I'm completely attached to it.
I'm completely attached to all this stuff.
I'm attached to my body, I'm attached to the headset.
I'm attached to my car, attached to people.
I'm attached to all of it.
And yet I know as an absolute fact,
I'm gonna walk away from all of it.
I'm gonna die.
It'll, you know, in fact, I almost died last year.
COVID almost killed me, I sent a goodbye text to my wife.
So I was, I thought I was dead.
You really did.
I sent her a goodbye.
I was in the emergency room and it had attacked my heart
and it had been at 190 beats per minute for 36 hours.
I couldn't last much longer.
I knew I couldn't, they couldn't stop it.
So, so.
Yeah, that was it.
So that was it.
So I texted her goodbye from the emergency room.
I love you, goodbye kind of thing.
Yeah, right.
Yeah, that was it.
So, were you afraid?
God, it scares the hell out of you, right?
But there is, there was, you're just feeling so bad anyway,
that all, you know, that sort of, you're scared,
but you're just feeling so bad
that in some sense you just want to stop anyway.
So, I've been there and faced it just a year ago.
How did that change you, by the way?
Having this intellectual reality
that's so challenging that you meditate on,
that it's just an interface
and one of the hardest things to come to terms with
is that that means that, you know, it's going to end.
How did that change you having come so close
to the reality of it?
It's not just an intellectual reality,
it's a reality of death.
It's forced, I've meditated for 20 years now.
And then I would say averaging three or four hours a day.
But it's put a new urgency,
but urgency is not the right word
because that, it's riveted my attention,
I'll put it that way.
It's really riveted my attention
and I've really paid, I spent a lot more time
looking at what spiritual traditions say.
I don't, by the way, again, not taking it with the,
you know, take it all with a grain of salt.
But on the other hand, I think it's stupid for me
to ignore it.
So I try to listen to the best ideas
and to sort out nonsense from,
and we all have to do it for ourselves, right?
It's not easy.
So what makes sense?
And I have the advantage of some science
so I can look at what science says
and try to compare with spiritual tradition.
I try to sort it out for myself.
And, but then I also look and realize
that there's another aspect to me
which is this whole emotional aspect.
The, I seem to be wired up
as evolutionary psychology says, I'm wired up, right?
All these defensive mechanisms.
So, you know, I'm inclined to lie if I need to.
I'm inclined to be angry, to protect myself,
to have an in-group and an out-group,
to try to make my reputation as big as possible,
to try to demean the out-group.
There's all these things that evolutionary psychology
is spot on, it's really brilliant about the human condition.
And yet I think evolution, as I said, evolutionary theory
is a projection of a deeper theory
where there may be no competition.
So how, so I'm in this very interesting position
where I feel like, okay, according to my own theory,
I'm consciousness.
And maybe this is what it means for consciousness to wake up.
It's not easy.
It's almost like I have,
I feel like I have real skin in the game.
It really is scary.
I really was scared when I was about to die.
It really was hard to say goodbye to my wife.
It really, it really pained.
And to then look at that and then look at the fact
that I'm gonna walk away from this anyway
and it's just an interface.
How do I, so it's trying to put all this stuff together
and really grok it, so to speak,
not just intellectually, but grok it at an emotional level.
Yeah, what are you afraid of?
You silly evolved organism
that's gotten way too attached to the interface.
What are you really afraid of?
That's right.
Is there a...
Very personal, you know, it's very, very personal.
Yeah, yeah.
I mean, speaking of the text,
what do you think is this whole love thing?
What's the role of love in our human condition?
This interface thing we have,
is this somehow interweaved, interconnected with consciousness?
This attachment we have to other humans and this deep,
like it's some quality to it
that seems very interesting, peculiar.
Well, there are two levels I would think about that.
There's love in the sexual sense
and there's love in a deeper sense.
And in the sexual sense,
we can give an evolutionary account of that and so forth.
And I think that's pretty clear to people.
In this deeper sense, right?
So of course, I love my wife in a sexual sense,
but there was a deeper sense as well.
When I was saying goodbye to her,
there was a deeper, much deeper love
that was really at play there.
That's one place where I think that the mixed bag
from spiritual traditions has something right.
When they say, you know, love your neighbor as yourself,
that in some sense, love is fundamental.
I think that they're onto something,
something very, very deep and profound.
And every most of all, I can get a personal glimpse of that.
Especially when I'm in the space with no thought.
When I can really let go of thoughts,
I get little glimpses of a love in the sense
that I'm not separate.
It's a love in the sense that I'm not different from that.
You know, yeah, if you and I are separate,
then I can fight you.
But if you and I are the same,
if there's a union there.
The togetherness of it, yeah.
What, who's God?
All those gods, the stories that have been told
throughout history, you said through
the spiritual traditions.
What do you think that is?
Is that us trying to find that common thing at the core?
Well, in many traditions, not all.
The one I was raised in.
So my dad was a Protestant minister.
We tend to think of God as a being.
But I think that that's not right.
I think the closest way to think about God is being,
period, not a being, but being,
the very ground of being itself is God.
I think that's the deep.
And from my point of view, that's the ground of consciousness.
So the ground of conscious being is
what we might call God.
But the word God has always been,
for example, you don't believe the same God as my God.
So I'm gonna fight you or we'll have wars over
because the being, the specific being that you call God
is different from the being that I call God and so we fight.
Whereas if it's not a being, but just being,
and you and I share a being,
then you and I are not separate.
And there's no reason to fight.
We're both part of that one being.
And loving you is loving myself
because we're all part of that one being.
The spiritual traditions that point to that,
I think are pointing in a very interesting direction.
And that does seem to match with the mathematics
of the conscious agent stuff
that I've been working on as well.
That it really fits with that, although that wasn't my goal.
Is there, you mentioned,
you mentioned that the young physicist
that you talk to or whose work you follow
have quite a lot of fun breaking with the traditions
of the past, the assumptions of the past.
What advice would you give to young people today
in high school and college, not just physicists,
but in general, how to have a career
they can be proud of, how they can have a life
they can be proud of, how to make their way in the world
from the lessons, from the wins and the losses
in your own life, what little insights could you pull out?
I would say the universe is a lot more interesting
than you might expect.
And you are a lot more special and interesting
than you might expect.
You might think that you're just a little tiny,
irrelevant 100 pound, 200 pound person
in a vast billions of light years across space.
And that's not the case.
You are, in some sense, the being
that's creating that space all the time,
every time you look.
So waking up to who you really are
outside of space and time as the author of space and time
is the author of everything that you see.
The author of space and time,
do you, that's beautiful, sorry.
You're the author of space and time.
And I'm the author of space and time.
And space and time is just one little data structure.
Many other consciousnesses are creating
other data structures.
They're authors of various other things.
So realizing, and then realizing that
I had this feeling of growing up and going
and reading all of these textbooks.
Oh man, it's all been done.
If I'd just been there 50 years ago,
I could have discovered this stuff,
but it's all in the textbooks now.
Well, believe me, the textbooks are gonna look silly
in 50 years.
And it's your chance to write the new textbook.
So, of course, study the current textbooks.
You have to understand them.
There's no way to progress
until you understand what's been done.
But then the only limit is your imagination, frankly.
That's the only limit.
The greatest books, the greatest textbooks ever written
on earth are yet to be written.
Exactly.
What do you think is the meaning of this whole thing?
What's the meaning of life from your limited interface?
Can you figure it all out?
Like why, so you said the universe is kind of trying
to figure itself out through us.
Why?
Why?
Yeah, that's the closest I've come.
So, I'll give you, so I will say that I don't know,
but here's my guess, right?
That's a good first sentence.
That's a good starting point.
And maybe that's gonna be a profound part
of the final answer is to start with the I don't know.
It's quite possible that that's really important
to start with the I don't know.
My guess is that if consciousness is fundamental
and if girdle's incompleteness theorem holds here
and there's infinite variety of structures
for consciousness to some sense explore.
That maybe that's what it's about.
This is something that Onika and I talked about a little bit
and she doesn't like this way of talking about it.
And so I'm gonna have to talk with her some more
about this way of talking.
But right now I'll just put it this way
and I'll have to talk with her more
and see if I can say it more clearly.
But the way I'm talking about it now is that
there's a sense in which there's being
and then there's experiences or forms
that come out of being.
That's one deep, deep mystery.
And the question that you asked, what's it all about?
Somehow it's related to that.
Why does being, why doesn't it just stay without any forms?
Why does it, why do we have experiences?
Why should, why not just have, when you close your eyes
and pay attention to what's behind you, there's nothing.
But there's being.
Why is, why don't we just stop there?
Why didn't we just stop there?
Why did we create all tables and chairs
and the sun and moon and people,
all this really complicated stuff?
Why?
And all I can guess right now,
and I'll probably kick myself in a couple of years
and say that was dumb, but all I can guess right now
is that somehow consciousness wakes up to itself
by knowing what it's not.
So here I am, I'm not this body.
And I sort of saw that, it was sort of in my face
when I sent a text goodbye, but then as soon as I'm better,
it's sort of like, okay, I sort of don't want to go there,
right?
Okay, so I just, so I am my body.
I go back to the standard thing, I am my body
and then I want to get that car.
And even though I was just about to die a year ago,
so that comes rushing back.
So consciousness immerses itself fully
into a particular headset, gets lost in it
and then slowly wakes up.
Just so it can escape and that is the waking up,
but it needs to have a negative.
It needs to know what it's not.
It needs to know what you are.
You have to say, oh, I'm not that, I'm not that.
That wasn't important, that wasn't important.
That's really powerful.
Don, let me just say that because I've been
a long-term fan of yours and we're supposed to have
a conversation doing this very difficult moment
in your life, let me just say you're a truly special person
and I for one, I know there's a lot,
a lot of others that agree.
I'm glad that you're still here with us on this earth.
If for a short time.
So whatever, whatever the universe,
whatever plan it has for you
that brought you close to death
to maybe enlighten you some kind of way,
I think, I think has an interesting plan for you.
You're one of the truly special humans
and it's a huge honor that you would sit
and talk with me today.
Thank you so much.
Thank you very much Lex.
I really appreciate that.
Thank you.
Thanks for listening to this conversation
with Donald Hoffman.
To support this podcast,
please check out our sponsors in the description.
And now let me leave you with some words
from Albert Einstein,
relevant to the ideas discussed in this conversation.
Time and space are modes by which we think
and not conditions in which we live.
Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.