cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/14869314
"I want to live forever in AI"
this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2024
724 points (95.6% liked)
Programmer Humor
19570 readers
1524 users here now
Welcome to Programmer Humor!
This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!
For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.
Rules
- Keep content in english
- No advertisements
- Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This right here might already be a flaw in your argument. Something doesn’t need to be physical to be real. In fact, there’s scientific evidence that physical reality itself is an illusion created through observation. That implies (although it cannot prove) that consciousness may be a higher construct that exists outside of physical reality itself.
If you’re interested in the philosophical questions this raises, there’s a great summary article that was published in Nature: https://www.nature.com/articles/436029a
Physical reality exists inside consciousness. Consciousness is the thing that can be directly observed.
That's pseudoscientific bullshit. Quantum physics absolutely does tell us that there is a real physical world. It's incredibly counterintuitive and impossible to fully describe, but does exist.
Heh, well... I guess that depends on how you define "physical"... if quantum field theory is correct then everything we experience is the product of fluctuations in various fields, including the physical mass of protons, neutrons etc. "Reality" as we experience it might be more of an emergent property, as illusory as the apparent solidity of matter.
On the contrary, it's not a flaw in my argument, it is my argument. I'm saying we can't be sure a machine could not be conscious because we don't know that our brain is what makes us conscious. Nor do we know where the threshold is where consciousness arises. It's perfectly possible all we need is to upload an exact copy of our brain into a machine, and it'd be conscious by default.
The problem with this is that even if a machine is conscious, there's no reason it would be conscious like us. I fully agree that consciousness could take many forms, probably infinite forms - and there's no reason to expect that one form would be functionally or technically compatible with another.
What does the idea "exact copy of our brain" mean to you? Would it involve emulating the physical structure of a human brain? Would it attempt to abstract the brain's operations from the physical structure? Would it be a collection of electrical potentials? Simulations of the behavior of specific neurochemicals? What would it be in practice, that would not be hand-wavy fantasy?
We make a giant theme park where people can interact with androids. Then we make a practically infinite number of copies of this theme park. We put androids in the copies and keep providing feedback to alter their behavior until they behave exactly like the people in the theme park.
I suppose I was overly vague about what I meant by "exact copy." I mean all of the knowledge, memories, and an exact map of the state of our neurons at the time of upload being uploaded to a computer, and then the functions being simulated from there. Many people believe that even if we could simulate it so perfectly that it matched a human brain's functions exactly, it still wouldn't be conscious because it's still not a real human brain. That's the point I was arguing against. My argument was that if we could mimic human brain functions closely enough, there's no reason to believe the brain is so special that a simulation could not achieve consciousness too.
And you're right, it may not be conscious in the same way. We have no reason to believe either way that it would or wouldn't be, because the only thing we can actually verify is conscious is ourself. Not humans in general, just you, individually. Therefore, how conscious something is is more of a philosophical debate than a scientific one because we simply cannot test if it's true. We couldn't even test if it was conscious at all, and my point wasn't that it would be, my point is that we have no reason to believe it's possible or impossible.
Unfortunately the physics underlying brain function are chaotic systems, meaning infinite (or “maximum”) precision is required to ensure two systems evolve to the same later states.
That level of precision cannot be achieved in measuring the state, without altering the state into something unknown after the moment of measurement.
Nothing quantum is necessary for this inability to determine state. Consider the problem of trying to map out where the eight ball is on a pool table, but you can’t see the eight ball. All you can do is throw other balls at it and observe how their velocities change. Now imagine you can’t see those balls either, because the sensing mechanism you’re using is composed of balls of equal or greater size.
Unsolvable problem. Like a box trying to contain itself.
Chaos comes into play as a state changes. The poster above you talks about copying the state. Once copied the two states will diverge because of chaos. But that doesn't preclude consciousness. It means the copy will soon have different thoughts.
Correct
I see that’s certainly a different way of looking at it :) Of course I can’t say with any authority that it must be wrong, but I think it’s a flaw because it seems you’re presuming that consciousness arises from physical properties. If the physical act of copying a brain’s data were to give rise to consciousness, that would imply consciousness is a product of physical reality. But my position (and that of the paper I linked) is that physical reality is a product of mental consciousness.
That's based on a pseudoscientific interpretation of quantum physics not related to actual physics.
It's not a flaw to not be batshit like you.
Do elaborate on the batshit part :) It’s a scientific fact that physical matter does not exist in its physical form when unobserved. This may not prove the existence of consciousness, but it certainly makes it plausible. It certainly invalidates physical reality as the “source of truth”, so to say. Which makes the explanation that physical reality is a product of consciousness not just plausible, but more likely than the other way around. Again, not a proof, but far from batshit.
No, it's not. The quantum field and the quantum wave exist whether or not you observe it, only the particle behavior changes based on interaction. Note how I specifically used the word "interaction", not "observation", because that's what a quantum physicist means when they say the wave-particle duality depends on the observer. They mean that a wave function collapses once it interacts definitely, not only when a person looks at it.
How so, when the interpretation you're citing is specifically dependant on the mechanics of quantum field fluctuation? How can physical reality not exist when it is physical reality that gives you the means to (badly) justify your hypothesis?
I think you're a little confused about what observed means and what it does.
When unobserved, elementary particles behave like a wave, but they do not stop existing. A wave is still a physical thing. Additionally, observation does not require consciousness. For instance, a building, such as a house, when nobody is looking at it, does not begin to behave like a wave. It's still a physical building. Therefore, observation is a bit of a misnomer. It really means a complex interaction we don't understand causes particles to behave like a particle and not a wave. It just happens that human observation is one of the possible ways this interaction can take place.
An unobserved black hole will still feed, an unobserved house is still a house.
To be clear, I'm not insulting you or your idea like the other dude, but I wanted to clear that up.
Thanks, that seems a fair approach, although it doesn’t have me entirely convinced yet. Can you explain what the physical form of a wave function is? Because it’s not like a wave, such as waves in the sea. It’s really a wave function, an abstract representation of probabilities which in my understanding does not have any physical representation.
You say the building does not start acting like a wave, and you’re right, that would be silly. But it does enter into a superposition where the building can be either collapsed or not. Like Schreudinger’s cat, which can be dead or alive, and will be in a superposition of both until observation happens again. And yes, the probabilities of this superposition are indeed expressed through the wave function, even though there is no physical wave.
It’s true observation does not require consciousness. But until we know what does constitute observation, I believe consciousness provides a plausible explanation.
So this video is a pretty good explanation of quantum field theory.
This idea is based on a misunderstanding of what Schrödinger actually said. The concept of the cat existing in a superposition state was not meant to be taken literally and is not an example of anything that is currently believed to be true about the physical universe.
Actually, it is. It's the same meaning we've had for waves in physics since the first time someone figured how to plot a 2d graph. Only the medium is a quantum field instead of water, its amplitude is probabilistic instead of height, and instead of time we have some other property of distributions, usually space-time.
A building does not actually enter a superposition when unobserved, nor does Schrodinger's cat. The point of that metaphor was to demonstrate, through humor, the difference between quantum objects and non-quantum objects, by pointing out how ridiculous it would be to think a cat could enter a superposition like a particle. In fact, one of the great mysteries of physics right now is why only quantum objects have that property, and in order to figure that out we have to figure out what interaction "observation" actually is.
Additionally, we can observe the effects of waves quite clearly. We can observe how they interact with things, how they interfere with each other, etc. It is only attempting to view the particle itself that causes it to collapse and become a particle and not a wave. We can view, for instance, the interference pattern of photons of light, behaving like a wave. This proves that the wave is in fact real, because we can see the effects of it. It's only if we try to observe the paths of the individual photons that the pattern changes. We didn't make the photons real, we could already see they were real by their effects on reality. We just collapsed the function, forcing them to take a single path.
This does not stroke with my understanding of quantum physics. As far as we know there is no clear distinction between “quantum objects” vs “non-quantum objects”. The double slit experiment has been reproduced with molecules as large as 114 atoms, and there seems no reason to believe that would be the upper limit: https://www.livescience.com/19268-quantum-double-slit-experiment-largest-molecules.html
The only part that’s proven is the interference pattern. So yes, we know it acts like a wave in that particular sense. But that’s not the same thing as saying it is a wave in the physical sense. A wave in the classic physical sense doesn’t collapse upon observation. I know it’s real in an abstract sense. I’m just questioning the physical nature of that reality.
There shouldn't be a distinction between quantum and non-quantum objects. That's the mystery. Why can't large objects exhibit quantum properties? Nobody knows, all we know is they don't. We've attempted to figure it out by creating larger and larger objects that still exhibit quantum properties, but we know, at some point, it just stops exhibiting these properties and we don't know why, but it doesn't require an observer to collapse the wave function.
Also, can you define physical for me? It seems we have a misunderstanding here, because I'm defining physical as having a tangible effect on reality. If it wasn't real, it could not interact with reality. It seems you're using a different definition.
What makes quantum mechanics distinct from classical mechanics is the fact that not only are there interference effects, but statistically correlated systems (i.e. "entangled") can seem to interfere with one another in a way that cannot be explained classically, at least not without superluminal communication, or introducing something else strange like the existence of negative probabilities.
If it wasn't for these kinds of interference effects, then we could just chalk up quantum randomness to classical randomness, i.e. it would just be the same as any old form of statistical mechanics. The randomness itself isn't really that much of a defining feature of quantum mechanics.
The reason I say all this is because we actually do know why there is a distinction between quantum and non-quantum objects and why large objects do not exhibit quantum properties. It is a mixture of two factors. First, larger systems like big molecules have smaller wavelengths, so interference with other molecules becomes harder and harder to detect. Second, there is decoherence. Even small particles, if they interact with a ton of other particles and you average over these interactions, you will find that the interference terms (the "coherences" in the density matrix) converge to zero, i.e. when you inject noise into a system its average behavior converges to a classical probability distribution.
Hence, we already know why there is a seeming "transition" from quantum to classical. This doesn't get rid of the fact that it is still statistical in nature, it doesn't give you a reason as to why a particle that has a 50% chance of being over there and a 50% chance of being over here, that when you measure it and find it is over here, that it wasn't over there. Decoherence doesn't tell you why you actually get the results you do from a measurement, it's still fundamentally random (which bothers people for some reason?).
But it is well-understood how quantum probabilities converge to classical probabilities. There have even been studies that have reversed the process of decoherence.
The distinction I tend to make is between physical using the classical definition of physics (where everything is made of particles basically) and the quantum mechanical physics which defies “physical” in the classical sense. So far we’ve only been able to scientifically witness quantum physics in small particles, but as you say, there’s no reason it can’t apply at a macro scale, just… we don’t know how to witness it, if possible.
Or maybe it does? The explanation I have for us being unable to apply the experiments at a larger scale is that as we scale things up, it becomes harder and harder to avoid accidental observation that would taint the experiment. But that’s really no more than a hunch/gut feeling. I would have no idea how to prove that 😅
I see, so your definition of "physical" is "made of particles?" In that case, sorta yeah. Particles behave as waves when unobserved, so you could argue that they no longer qualify as particles, and therefore, by your definition, are not physical. But that kinda misses the point, right? Like, all that means is that the observation may have created the particle, not that the observation created reality, because reality is not all particles. Energy, for instance, is not all particles, but it can be. Quantum fields are not particles, but they can give rise to them. Both those things are clearly real, but they aren't made of particles.
On the second point, that's kinda trespassing out of science territory and into "if a tree falls in the forest" territory. We can't prove that a truly unobserved macroscopic object wouldn't display quantum properties if we just didn't check if it was, but that's kinda a useless thing to think about. It's kinda similar to what our theories are though, in that the best theory we have is that the bigger the object is, the more likely the interaction we call "observation" just happens spontaneously without the need for interaction. Too big, and it's so unlikely in any moment for it not to happen that the chances of the wave function not being collapsed in any given moment is so close to zero there's no meaningful distinction between the actual odds and zero.
Agreed on all counts, except it being useless to think about :) It’s only useless if you dismiss philosophy as interesting altogether.
I guess that depends on the point being made. You didn’t raise this argument, but I often see people arguing that the universe is deterministic and therefore we cannot have free will. But the quantum mechanical reality is probabilistic, which does leave room for things such as free will.
I can agree with your view to say observation doesn’t create reality, but then it does still affect it by collapsing the wave function. It’s a meaningful distinction to make in a discussion about consciousness, since it leaves open the possibility that our consciousness is not merely an emergent property of complex interaction that has an illusion of free will, but that it may actually be an agent of free will.
And yes, I fully recognise this enters into the philosophical realm and there is no science to support these claims. I’m merely arguing that science leaves open a path that enters that realm, and from there it is up to us to make sense of it.
There is the philosophical adage “I think therefore I am”, which I do adhere to. I know I am, so I’ll consider as flawed any reasoning that says I’m not. Maybe that just makes me a particularly stubborn scientific curiosity, but I like to think I’m more than that :)