A Digital Physics Argument for the existence of God

Hallucinogen

Here's my variant of the Digital Physics Argument for the existence of God:

1. Any simulation of a world either operates mechanically in physical space (e.g., in a computer) or is the result of information processing in a mind (e.g., a programmer’s mind).
2. The success of digital physics and the holographic principle imply that physical space is an emergent 3D representation of information processing.
3. Quantum cognition and decision theory have shown that information processing in a mind exhibits quantum principles known to underlie the emergence of physical space.
4. From (2) and (3), the information processing from which physical space is emergent is scientifically indistinguishable from the information processing that occurs in a mind.
5. Restating (1) in terms of (4), our world is either scientifically indistinguishable from the result of information processing in a mind, or it is the result of information processing in a mind.
6. Therefore, our world is the result of information processing in a mind, this mind we call God.

Below is supporting evidence for premises (2) and (3):

Considering physics as a digital-computational system links together disparate areas of physics and unifies them under a parsimonious model.

It is quite clear that digital physics is what the accumulating findings in physics have been converging on. For example, the Bell test experiments evidencing quantum nonlocality, as well as CPT invariance imply strong conservation of information. The finding that the speed of light is a universal maximum speed and invariant also supports digital physics, as would fit the category of being the programmatic processing rate. This explains why time slows down in areas of high matter density, as more information must be processed. The quantization of energy in terms of the Planck constant exemplifies that physical values exist in packets, like information does. Digital physics has explanatory power in that it imposes finite threshold values that are not provided by models of physics based on differential equations. When we plot the configurations of particles produced by two interfering wave pulses, the allowed particles look exactly like the allowed values of a cellular automaton within its intersecting discrete categories, and this serves as an explanation for why particular kinds of particle exist. Furthermore, classical models such as those of thermodynamics, only work with certain assumptions about the surrounding medium of an object, but these are not necessary when formulated as a digital process governed by the program of cellular automata. In the 1980s, Stephen Wolfram discovered that cellular automaton programs can generate immense complexity and predict highly complex physical phenomena with much more simple rules than the equations that physics standardly uses.

Computer scientists Konrad Zuse and Edward Fredkin, as well as mathematician Stephen Wolfram, spotted the above connections early. The physicists Juergen Schmidhuber, Brian Whitworth and Seth Lloyd have also contributed to the developing theory.

But there’s further confirmation that physics is digital in nature. The physicist Sylvester James Gates showed that the equations of physics can be modelled as error-checking codes called Adinkras, which process matter in the form of Shannon Information.

The Holographic Principle is stronger evidence still that physical space is the result of information processing. According to the Holographic Principle all information in the bulk of a space is coded at its border. This principle was derived as an explanation for the upper entropic bound of black holes and their quantum mechanical features. In demonstrating the scope and power of the holographic correspondence between areas and information, space-time as an emergent feature of underlying information processing neatly wraps together the solution to entropy paradoxes with quantum entanglement and quantum gravity.

In support of premise (3): Studies in human cognition and decision have revealed that certain cognition fallacies, such as the question order effect and conjunction and disjunction fallacies are explained (mapped / mirrored) by Bell test inequalities and quantum theory’s allowance of considering two ideas simultaneously, which Bayesian and classical probability theory don’t allow. As a result, the information processing of human minds can be modelled as undergoing the complementarity (also called noncommutativity), a property that quantum information processing also has. For example, wave-particle duality and Heisenberg uncertainty are manifestations of complementarity. The outcome of these studies is that human minds process information in a way scientifically indistinguishable from the information processing from which space-time is known to emerge.

Argument written by Adam Summerfield and inspired by the more concise original by Johanan Raatz. I sought to tie the direct evidence for the correspondence between information processing and space-time into the argument because the original argument merely asserted that the universe is a simulation, which resulted in a lot of objections from critics.

wonderer1

3. Quantum cognition and decision theory have shown that information processing in a mind exhibits quantum principles — Hallucinogen

Citation?

L'éléphant

4. From (2) and (3), the information processing from which physical space is emergent is scientifically indistinguishable from the information processing that occurs in a mind. — Hallucinogen

Incorrect. All your premises are rushed, and without definitions. For example, if computers use bits, our mind reads the world as pictures.

#6 is fallacious.

Vera Mont

1. Any simulation of a world either operates mechanically in physical space (e.g., in a computer) or is information processing in a mind (e.g., a programmer’s mind). — Hallucinogen

So, that's a simulation. What's the original template?

Hallucinogen

↪wonderer1

Towards Quantum Integrated Information Theory

"The holistic IIT approach is in principle applicable to any information-processing dynamical network regardless of its interpretation in the context of consciousness. In this paper we take the first steps towards a formulation of a general and consistent version of IIT for interacting networks of quantum systems." — Towards Quantum Integrated Information Theory

A quantum-like information processing model with memory noise for question order effect

Recently, many studies have applied quantum mathematical formalism to the modeling of quantum-like phenomena in human decision-making — A quantum-like information processing model...

Quantum Cognition: A New Theoretical Approach To Psychology
(no quote)

Quantum cognition and decision theories: A tutorial (no link)

Quantum theory provides an alternative probabilistic framework for modelling decision
making compared with classical probability theory, and has been successfully used to address behaviour considered paradoxical or irrational from a classical point of view. — Quantum cognition and decision theories: A tutorial

Contextuality and context-sensitivity in probabilistic models of cognition

In contrast, quantum cognition holds that a cognitive property maybe indeterminate, i.e., its properties do not have well established values prior to observation. We argue that indeterminacy is sufficient for incompatibility between cognitive properties. — Contextuality and context-sensitivity in probabilistic models of cognition

What Is Quantum Cognition, and How Is It Applied to Psychology?

In this introduction, we focus on two quantum principles as examples to show why quantum cognition is an appealing new theoretical direction for psychology: complementarity, which suggests that some psychological measures have to be made sequentially and that the context generated by the first measure can influence responses to the next one, producing measurement order effects, and superposition, which suggests that some psychological states cannot be defined with respect to definite values but, instead, that all possible values within the superposition have some potential for being expressed. — What Is Quantum Cognition, and How Is It Applied to Psychology?

Quantum like modeling of decision making: Quantifying uncertainty with the aid of Heisenberg–Robertson inequality

In the quantum-like framework the brain is a black box, such that its information processing can be described by the formalism of quantum theory. “Mental observables”, e.g., in the form of questions, are represented by Hermitian operators (and in more general framework by so-called positive operator valued measures, Asano et al., 2015). The mental state (or the belief state) of an agent is represented like a quantum state ... Therefore we can apply the Heisenberg uncertainty principle to characterize interrelation of uncertainties of two incompatible questions — Quantum like modeling of decision making: Quantifying uncertainty with the aid of Heisenberg–Robertson inequality

Hallucinogen

↪L'éléphant

if computers use bits, our mind reads the world as pictures — L'éléphant

I'm confused why you mention this - computers do "use" bits, and our minds do understand the world in pictures. This is an example of why my points are rushed and undefined?

You can assume I'm using standard dictionary definitions.

Hallucinogen

So, that's a simulation. What's the original template? — Vera Mont

The simulation is the world, the template is information processing in a mind.

universeness

the template is information processing in a mind. — Hallucinogen

Whose mind? and how do you know whether or not that mind is simulated? This is just another infinite regression, that get's us nowhere, imo.

Hallucinogen

Whose mind? — universeness

All we're establishing here is a mind, hence the conclusion in (6).

and how do you know whether or not that mind is simulated? — universeness

The grounds for that possibility aren't given. The scientific evidence is that physical space is simulated.

I don't see an evident basis on which to generalize the property of being simulated to the mind that is simulating the physical space (especially since it is minds in which information processing occurs).

universeness

I don't see an evident basis on which to generalize the property of being simulated to the mind that is simulating the physical space (especially since it is minds in which information processing occurs). — Hallucinogen

Why? we humans can produce simulations/emulations to the extent that we even call them 'virtual' reality! So according to any simulated universe theory, we are simulations that create simulations. There is no compelling reason for that regression to stop. That's why the theists provide even poorer responses to 'who made god,' than scientists who speculate on 'before the big bang.'

All we're establishing here is a mind, hence the conclusion in (6). — Hallucinogen

The problem is that we have not established 'a mind,' as against say 'a mindless spark that sparked and then no longer exists or such cyclical posits as Roger Penrose's CCC. The only valid answer is:

The grounds for that possibility aren't given. — Hallucinogen

In other words, no human has any compelling evidence whatsoever about the existence of god and there is no 'digital physics argument' that is worth the paper or web post it is posited on. Such are pure speculations at best.

The scientific evidence is that physical space is simulated. — Hallucinogen

No it's not! There is no compelling evidence that such a conjecture has any truth value at all.

You are simply using gaps in current scientific knowledge, to impose god posits or 'a first cause mind with intent' as a placeholder, which is far far far more unlikely to be true, than say Roger Penrose's CCC, which at least has 'hawking points,' as it's main evidence. He at least can empirically challenge the alternate 'possible,' explanations for the existence of Hawking points, as put forward by folks like Alan Guth etc. That particular debate/discussion is still alive and kicking within the science community as far as i know.

JuanZu

↪Hallucinogen

So, the "scientific evidence" is also simulated. That's kinda a liar's paradox. :joke:

This is a reminder of why we need philosophy of science accompanying metaphysical speculations (grounded on some scientific approaches, but arbitrarily chosen) about world's ontology.

wonderer1

↪Hallucinogen

Thanks.

Vera Mont

↪Hallucinogen

Why bother with that hypothesis? What does it clarify or explain?

wonderer1

3. Quantum cognition and decision theory have shown that information processing in a mind exhibits quantum principles known to underlie the emergence of physical space. — Hallucinogen

Having looked at some of the quotes and links you provided, they seem to be presenting speculation rather than the sort of evidence you suggest.

Hallucinogen

↪wonderer1

By speculation, you mean like random guessing which makes no indication about how cognition takes place?

Hallucinogen

↪Vera Mont

Which hypothesis do you mean?

Hallucinogen

we humans can produce simulations/emulations to the extent that we even call them 'virtual' reality! — universeness

Yes, this is what's referred to in premise (1).

So according to any simulated universe theory, we are simulations that create simulations. — universeness

This is an irrational jump. By "we", you mean our minds, but no reason to concluide that minds are simulated has been presented here. I said I didn't see the reason to apply the property of being simulated to minds doing the simulating, and you respond by pointing out that minds simulate simulations. That does not prove that minds are simulated, so your conclusion is a jump.

The problem is that we have not established 'a mind,' — universeness

Then you missed premise (3). Minds exhibit the kind of information processing (specifically, "quantum") that physical space emerges from. So a mind is implicated from facts about what physical space is.

In other words, no human has any compelling evidence whatsoever about the existence of god — universeness

I'm confused why you think this is what I am saying. I am replying to your question "and how do you know whether or not that mind is simulated?" by saying that the grounds for that mind being simulated aren't present in the evidence or the argument. The argument doesn't depend on the idea that minds are simulated, so me admitting that there's no answer to your question doesn't count in favor or against the argument, nor show that the evidence for the conclusion is lacking.

You are simply using gaps in current scientific knowledge — universeness

I didn't say anything like this. I'm saying digital physics explains how physical phenomena are related in ways other theories fail to, hence physical space is emergent as per the holographic principle.

jgill

If quantum theory becomes philosophically stable at some time in the future all this stuff that spins off its mysteries will probably become scientific ectoplasm.

L'éléphant

I'm confused why you mention this - computers do "use" bits, and our minds do understand the world in pictures. This is an example of why my points are rushed and undefined? — Hallucinogen

No, I'm the one confused with the above comment. I pointed that the computer does not read the way our mind reads. Yet you said this:

3. Quantum cognition and decision theory have shown that information processing in a mind exhibits quantum principles known to underlie the emergence of physical space.
4. From (2) and (3), the information processing from which physical space is emergent is scientifically indistinguishable from the information processing that occurs in a mind. — Hallucinogen

Check your premises #1 and #2. You are arguing that the mind reads like how a computer does.
This is false.

Hallucinogen

No, I'm the one confused with the above comment. I pointed that the computer does not read the way our mind reads — L'éléphant

You didn't. All you said regarding computers and minds was:

if computers use bits, our mind reads the world as pictures. — L'éléphant

This doesn't state that a computer does not read the way our mind reads, since it does not prove that pictures and bits are mutually exclusive. It doesn't necessarily follow that if computers process one way, then our minds process a different way.

Pictures can be represented in bits and bits can be processed to produce a picture. So I don't recognise the mutual exclusivity that serves as the basis of your reply.

You are arguing that the mind reads like how a computer does.
This is false. — L'éléphant

They both use information processing. Saying that one of them "reads" some substrate that isn't information isn't going to be defensible.

L'éléphant

Pictures can be represented in bits and bits can be processed to produce a picture. So I don't recognise the mutual exclusivity that serves as the basis of your reply. — Hallucinogen

Our mind does not read bits. We use perception to view the world. In pictures -- which means a complete picture.

They both use information processing. Saying that one of them "reads" some substrate that isn't information isn't going to be defensible. — Hallucinogen

Information processing is perception in humans. Computers do not perceive. There is no vantage point with computers.

Vera Mont

Which hypothesis do you mean? — Hallucinogen

this one

Therefore, our world is the result of information processing in a mind, this mind we call God. — Hallucinogen

seems entirely superfluous, since it's either a tenet of unsupported faith or an infinite regression, neither of which promotes understanding of the world

universeness

Here's my variant of the Digital Physics Argument for the existence of God: — Hallucinogen

And you accuse me of making irrational jumps! :roll:

So according to any simulated universe theory, we are simulations that create simulations.
— universeness
This is an irrational jump. — Hallucinogen

So a mind is implicated from facts about what physical space is. — Hallucinogen

No human being knows what physical space IS, and the facts about physical space that we do know do not implicate a mind at source. To suggest it does, is indeed an irrational jump.
What do you think qualifies as the most compelling point you make in your OP as evidence that a god exists?

wonderer1

6. Therefore, our world is the result of information processing in a mind, this mind we call God. — Hallucinogen

Why in God's mind rather than in say, Tod's laptop?

Copied and pasted from another forum:

Let's suppose there is a six dimensional universe (6 spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension). In this universe there is a naturalistically evolved intelligent being called Tod.

Now suppose that due to existing in this six dimensional universe, brains and computers can be vastly more powerful than in our universe due to the extra dimensions available for interconnectivity, higher complexity of parts per volume, etc. (Feel free to add dimensions as needed.) In other regards we can consider Tod to be a lot like us for the purposes of this thought experiment.

Now Tod is a researcher at a university, and the prevailing wisdom is that intelligent life can only evolve in a universe with four spatial dimensions or more. Tod sets out to study this matter, and in the course of this study he sets up some comprehensive simulations of a universe with three spatial and one temporal dimension. After some trial and error, Tod succeeds in creating a simulated universe where intelligent life evolves.

Of course Tod's creation is meant to be understood as our universe. So, some questions:

1. Can it be proven by beings inside such a simulation what the nature of their existence is?

2. Is Tod deserving of worship by the intelligent beings that exist inside the simulation?
2a. Does it change things to know that Tod is going to shut the simulation down in ten minutes?
2b. Does it further change things to know that ten minutes in Tod's time is equivalent to 10 million years in our time?

Now, suppose Tod's colleague Ged gets a copy of Tod's program and runs it on his own 6D computer. However, unlike Tod who is hands off other than setting the simulation going, Ged gets really interested in the lives of some intelligent beings in one tiny microcosm of the simulation. Ged develops ways to manifest himself within the simulation he is running and to communicate with the 3D people who are being simulated. GED tells some of the 3D people that he is going to build 6D robots in the actual 6D universe and give the 3D people he approves of bodies in the real 6D world.

3. Is GED more worthy of worship than Tod? Why or why not?

What hath Tod wrought?

Hallucinogen

Our mind does not read bits. — L'éléphant

Firstly, it should be obvious that we can read, understand and interpret bits. Second, our perception is literally composed of what a bit is - a binary distinction. You either see an object or your don't. You either distinguish something from another, or you don't. Our perception is completely dependent on binary distinctions.

We use perception to view the world. In pictures -- which means a complete picture. — L'éléphant

I'm not sure you understood what I said. I said "Pictures can be represented in bits and bits can be processed to produce a picture." and therefore bits and pictures aren't mutually exclusive. You then replied as if they are mutually exclusive things, without proving that they are. You just asserted again that our mind doesn't read bits, but pictures instead. That isn't a response that gets us anywhere.

If you want to respond to it, you have to prove that our perception taking the form of images or anything else is somehow independent of the notion of informational bits. But I just explained that it isn't, so to make a valid response, you have to address what I said.

Information processing is perception in humans — L'éléphant

Good. Information processing takes place on bits, so perception is composed of perceptual bits.

Computers do not perceive. There is no vantage point with computers. — L'éléphant

Hence why I put "reads" in quotation marks. They can both be said to process information but only one of them perceives.

Hallucinogen

this one — Vera Mont

?

The conclusion of a deductive argument isn't a hypothesis, if that's what you mean.

seems entirely superfluous, since it's either a tenet of unsupported faith or an infinite regression — Vera Mont

You didn't understand the argument. I dealt with the objection regarding infinite regression above. There is no grounds on which to argue that minds are simulated here, just physical space. No infinite regression. It's an incorrect inference you're making.

Hallucinogen

And you accuse me of making irrational jumps! — universeness

Prove that it's a jump.

No human being knows what physical space IS, and the facts about physical space that we do know do not implicate a mind at source. — universeness

Asserting baseless skepticism about scientific findings isn't a response I see often.

What do you think qualifies as the most compelling point you make in your OP as evidence that a god exists? — universeness

Conclusions tend to rely on the whole of the argument, not just one isolated part of it.

Hallucinogen

Why in God's mind rather than in say, Tod's laptop? — wonderer1

Points (3), (4) and (5) should tell you why. The information processing from which space emerges is indistinguishable from the information processing that takes place inside minds. Laptops are physical matter in space to start with, so they are emergent along with it, and they don't exhibit the quantum cognition that human minds do.

universeness

Prove that it's a jump. — Hallucinogen

The burden of proof regarding posits you put forward, as supposed evidence for the existence of a god lies with you the proposer, not me the sceptic, the atheist.

Asserting baseless skepticism about scientific findings isn't a response I see often. — Hallucinogen

Wheras, inflating and projecting scientific findings into god of the gaps woo woo posits, is something we are all offered regularly.

What do you think qualifies as the most compelling point you make in your OP as evidence that a god exists?
— universeness

Conclusions tend to rely on the whole of the argument, not just one isolated part of it. — Hallucinogen

The conclusions can be anything you like when the whole of the argument amounts to pure flights of fancy.

Hallucinogen

The burden of proof regarding posits you put forward, as supposed evidence for the existence of a god lies with you the proposer, not me the sceptic, the atheist. — universeness

You claimed that a statement I made was a jump. Your claim is about the reasoning of my statemen, and you have that reasoning in front of you, so the burden of proof is in fact on you to justify your claim about what you are reading. The only thing that carries no burden of proof is "I don't know", which is not what you said. You misunderstand the burden of proof, as if it means "I get to claim that someone else's reasoning is fallacious without responsibility" which is not what it means.

inflating and projecting scientific findings into god of the gaps woo woo posits — universeness

Point out the exact statement I made that is "god of the gaps".

The conclusions can be anything you like when the whole of the argument amounts to pure flights of fancy. — universeness

This is a description of the quality of your own reasoning. You simply declare assertions about reasoning that you dislike to be incorrect with no substantive basis. Whenever you are challenged, you simply switch to a new form of denial without supporting what you previously denied.

universeness

You claimed that a statement I made was a jump. Your claim is about the reasoning of my statemen, and you have that reasoning in front of you, so the burden of proof is in fact on you to justify your claim about what you are reading. The only thing that carries no burden of proof is "I don't know", which is not what you said. You misunderstand the burden of proof, as if it means "I get to claim that someone else's reasoning is fallacious without responsibility" which is not what it means. — Hallucinogen

Oh, that's easy. My main evidence against your god of the gaps proposal ranges from the problem of evil to the problem of divine hiddenness. So your jump that forms the title of this thread and the pure speculation that is the basis of your numbered subjective opinions is no evidence in support of your god of the gaps proposition. The god posit is also unfalsifiable so cannot be proved wrong, but all a god has to do is stop hiding, if it exists, otherwise it will remain fictitious or irrelevant.

2. The success of digital physics and the holographic principle imply that physical space is an emergent 3D representation of information processing. — Hallucinogen

What success are you referring to? This is merely your opinion. In a Computer for example a 1 can be used to represent any value in an analogue range of measurements of voltage > 0 and <= 5 volts.
There is no proof that any aspect of the information of the universe is digital or binary. It can be represented as such but such emulations are not indicative of a first cause mind. Such indicates that you require intent to create a simulation/emulation, but as far as we know, simulation/emulation was invented by humans not gods, and the holographic principle is not proven, so it's currently conjecture.

3. Quantum cognition and decision theory have shown that information processing in a mind exhibits quantum principles known to underlie the emergence of physical space. — Hallucinogen

The idea that QM is part of human consciousness is not proven and even if it was that does not mean god exists (another one of your jumps). No such link between information processing in the mind and the emergence of physical space has been proven (you are jumping around more than a typical Earth bound bunny rabbit!)

4. From (2) and (3), the information processing from which physical space is emergent is scientifically indistinguishable from the information processing that occurs in a mind. — Hallucinogen

But 2 and 3 are nothing but pure conjectures based on your personal misguided interpretation of scientific proposals, so 'From (2) and (3),' is logically fallacious as you have not established that 2 or 3 is true!

5. Restating (1) in terms of (4), our world is either scientifically indistinguishable from the result of information processing in a mind, or it is the result of information processing in a mind.
6. Therefore, our world is the result of information processing in a mind, this mind we call God. — Hallucinogen

Well, I think you should go for 'I' in those words I have bolded in the above quote, rather than assuming you speak for any significant group of 'we' considering there are more varieties of gods proposed than varieties of chocolate.
such 'silly' conclusion as 5 and 6 above only invokes :roll: or/and :lol: for the rational thinker.

Point out the exact statement I made that is "god of the gaps". — Hallucinogen

Your thread title!!!! and most of the statement made in your opening!
Any concept of 'digital physics,' is purely speculative!!!

"Digital physics is a speculative idea that the universe can be conceived of as a vast, digital computation device, or as the output of a deterministic or probabilistic computer program."
You are trying to peddle woo woo god of the gap posits and trying to fool people that you have a sound academic based, scientific case, it's utter nonsense, nothing more.

This is a description of the quality of your own reasoning. You simply declare assertions about reasoning that you dislike to be incorrect with no substantive basis. Whenever you are challenged, you simply switch to a new form of denial without supporting what you previously denied. — Hallucinogen

Well, peddlers of woo woo always claim such things, when their woo woo is clearly displayed, yes?
I suggest you swallow that bitter pill whole, and try to escape from the theistic shackles, that fog and encumber your rational faculties.

A Digital Physics Argument for the existence of God

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions