A Digital Physics Argument for the existence of God
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 programmers 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 theres 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 theorys allowance of considering two ideas simultaneously, which Bayesian and classical probability theory dont 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.
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 programmers 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 theres 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 theorys allowance of considering two ideas simultaneously, which Bayesian and classical probability theory dont 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.
Comments (46)
Citation?
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.
So, that's a simulation. What's the original template?
Towards Quantum Integrated Information Theory
A quantum-like information processing model with memory noise for question order effect
Quantum Cognition: A New Theoretical Approach To Psychology
(no quote)
Quantum cognition and decision theories: A tutorial (no link)
Contextuality and context-sensitivity in probabilistic models of cognition
What Is Quantum Cognition, and How Is It Applied to Psychology?
Quantum like modeling of decision making: Quantifying uncertainty with the aid of HeisenbergRobertson inequality
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.
The simulation is the world, the template is information processing in a mind.
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.
All we're establishing here is a mind, hence the conclusion in (6).
Quoting 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).
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.'
Quoting 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:
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
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.
Thanks.
Why bother with that hypothesis? What does it clarify or explain?
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.
Yes, this is what's referred to in premise (1).
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
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:
Quoting Hallucinogen
Check your premises #1 and #2. You are arguing that the mind reads like how a computer does.
This is false.
You didn't. All you said regarding computers and minds was:
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
Our mind does not read bits. We use perception to view the world. In pictures -- which means a complete picture.
Quoting Hallucinogen
Information processing is perception in humans. Computers do not perceive. There is no vantage point with computers.
this one
Quoting 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
And you accuse me of making irrational jumps! :roll:
Quoting Hallucinogen
Quoting 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?
Why in God's mind rather than in say, Tod's laptop?
Copied and pasted from another forum:
What hath Tod wrought?
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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting L'éléphant
Good. Information processing takes place on bits, so perception is composed of perceptual bits.
Quoting L'éléphant
Hence why I put "reads" in quotation marks. They can both be said to process information but only one of them perceives.
?
The conclusion of a deductive argument isn't a hypothesis, if that's what you mean.
Quoting 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.
Prove that it's a jump.
Quoting universeness
Asserting baseless skepticism about scientific findings isn't a response I see often.
Quoting universeness
Conclusions tend to rely on the whole of the argument, not just one isolated part of it.
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.
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.
Quoting Hallucinogen
Wheras, inflating and projecting scientific findings into god of the gaps woo woo posits, is something we are all offered regularly.
Quoting Hallucinogen
The conclusions can be anything you like when the whole of the argument amounts to pure flights of fancy.
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.
Quoting universeness
Point out the exact statement I made that is "god of the gaps".
Quoting 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.
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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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!)
Quoting 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!
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
Possibly. I also could see no reason for making it in the first place. What did you want an indifferent self-created god for?
It was proven in the second premise, which had a substantial amount of supporting text below the argument.
An X of the gaps fallacy is when there's an unknown connection between 2 things and someone makes an inference from the unknown to some 3rd entity. That's not anywhere in my reasoning nor in the title.
You're absolutely right, we need to tell Susskind et al
Quoting Hallucinogen
would have to simulate a world that physically exists; a hologram is digital representation of a physical object. All the rest follows from the impossibility of 'simulating' a holographic space into existence out of a mind that consists of nothing. Might as well go back to "In the beginning was the Word." (and the word was either 'quantum' or 'abracadabra'.)
The snake looked up, the hungry snake looked up, and was not fed, for its tail was only a simulation.
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 programmers mind).
Can you clarify what simulation means? How does this contrast with reality? The idea of a simulation entails an emulation of what is real correct?
For now, the only thing I can conclude is that you are currently claiming that "Our current reality is a simulation of the world."
2. The success of digital physics and the holographic principle imply that physical space is an emergent 3D representation of information processing.
So far you haven't declared what physical space is, we're assuming this is a simulation. That means we have to add an adjective for this statement to still be clear. "...imply that simulated physical space..."
With this, you're still good.
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.
Once again, add "simulated physical space" because you have not yet declared what non-simulated space would be.
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.
As long as we retain "simulated physical space", this seems fine.
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.
Finally we have to add, "our simulated world..." and this holds.
6. Therefore, our world is the result of information processing in a mind, this mind we call God.[/quote]
Finally you can state: "Therefore, our simulated world is the result of information processing in in a mind, this mind we call God."
We can call it God if we want, but the mind could also be called a "human" or "computer". So, very cool idea, but as you can tell without first contrasting what a simulation is vs what a non-simulated world is, its mostly circular. I've done a couple of "Prove God" posts in my past if you're interested. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/8924/a-fun-puzzle-for-the-forums-the-probability-of-god/p1
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12098/a-first-cause-is-logically-necessary/p1
Clearly you do not understand what you're talking about.
A world is a set of objects in a space. The decision of whether something is simulated versus non-simulated would rest on whether something emerges from information processing.
I haven't spotted the circularity, could you point it out to me?
There also seems to be confusion about what "information" means. In physics, information is nothing other than the more or less ordered arrangement of different objects. Whether they are waves, whether they are entangled particles, etc. And I mention these last two cases because it is how it has been theorized that information exists in the event horizon.
Sure. What I meant is that without defining what a non-simulated world is, but only defining a simulated world, its turned out like:
A. Its given that the world is simulated.
B. Therefore the world is simulated.
But I just did this? A world is a set of objects in a space. The question is whether it emerges from information processing or not.
Quoting Philosophim
That's not the conclusion of the argument. And it leaves out the rest of the argument, which establishes the connections between space, information processing and minds.
The possibility of a non-simulated world existing is implicit in the first part of premise 1.
My apologies then, I misunderstood or misread your intentions. I'll give it another read.
Quoting Hallucinogen
A non-simulated world is a set of objects in space. But if that's the case, then a simulated world is not a set of objects in space. Seems clear. But premise one doesn't address this. It notes that a simulation runs in either a non-simulated world, or a mind. These really aren't separate issues though. A mind is not itself a simulation right? Meaning that it is a non-simulated bit of reality that simulations can run in. Is this what you intended, or did you intend for minds to be simulations themselves?
Quoting Hallucinogen
It doesn't imply that the world is not a set of objects in space however. The simulations we run result in simulated outcomes. An accurate simulation of a non-simulated world can be applied to a non-simulated world without difficulty. I can simulate what will happen to an apple if I drop it using equations, then actually drop the apple. If the simulation is accurate, the apple will drop within a small margin of error of the simulation. That doesn't mean the world is simulated, it just means that simulation of the actual world is accurate. This same point applies to point 3.
Quoting Hallucinogen
All that we can conclude from this is that our simulations of the world accurately reflect how our minds function. I suppose it really depends on your definition of mind. Are minds part of a non-simulated world, or are minds simulated themselves?
Quoting Hallucinogen
I'll repeat what I noted earlier. The only way you can validly claim 4 is based on one is to state, "A simulated world is either..." Because that's what you stated in 1. An accurate simulation of a world will accurately portray how the non-simulated world functions. There has to be something non-simulated to simulate right? Otherwise there isn't a non-simulated world, and thus the simulation cannot be accurate or inaccurate, it just is. But if it is an accurate simulation, it is not indistinguishible because it lacks the key property that you defined a non-simulated world as being: A set of objects in space. If a simulated world is a set of objects in space, then it is not a simulated world.
I hope this better reflects what you were trying to state. Please correct me where I've misinterpreted the issue.
What I said to you above, was:
Quoting Hallucinogen
A set of objects in a space that is not emergent from information processing is a non-simulated world.
A set of objects in a space that is emergent from information processing is a simulated world.
Quoting Philosophim
If we have no information then we can begin from the premise that they are. "Space is either mental or physical" assuming that the physical = non-mental, and the mental = non-physical.
Quoting Philosophim
Correct.
Quoting Philosophim
Why is it of importance to point out what we can simulate about a non-simulated world?
Quoting Philosophim
I'm not sure what you're rebutting here. The world is emergent from information processing, exactly because our models that treat it as such have more explanatory power than those that don't.
Quoting Philosophim
Are you using "our simulations of the world" to mean what theoretical physicists do? What we can conclude is that the information processing space emerges from and the kind that minds produce are the same thing.
Quoting Philosophim
I'm not following this. Claim 4 isn't subject to exceptions about simulations existing in mechanical space because of claim 2. There doesn't need to be an "either" because of 2.
Quoting Philosophim
There has to be something non-simulated to do the simulating. Those are minds.
Quoting Philosophim
Yes, there isn't.
Quoting Philosophim
I don't know what you are referring to when you say "accurate". There isn't a non-simulated world, so the fact that space is emergent from information processing isn't "accurate" to anything other than the information processing in God's mind.
Quoting Philosophim
It isn't indistinguishable from what? Information processing from which physical space is emergent is scientifically indistinguishable from the information processing that occurs in a mind.
Quoting Philosophim
I defined a world as a set of objects in a space.
Quoting Philosophim
Why have you decided this? Every simulated world is a set of objects in a space.
The only thing I say is that Creation has a Creator, and I do not pretend to prove it, but I would like to see someone try to disprove it.
What for? If a proposition is neither proved nor disproved, it's nothing more than a supposition. It doesn't matter.