The Many Possible Ways to Resurrect

Good job making it to this page. Any self-respecting intelligent agent, almost no matter what its goals, seeks to first ensure its survival. For an intelligent agent, survival of its will is to be sought merely as a consequence of the hard economics, as a matter of mathematically-defined utility, as a matter of game theory. Most humans are not intelligent agents that have a goal in relation to which they can be intelligent. They are creatures bouncing around in their environment based on the cognitive algorithms that genes found useful for their continuation. This is why humans mostly don’t really care about living forever or resurrecting. If you are interested in this topic one of the following is probably true:
1. it is probably a passing interest acquired for subconscious signaling motives and none of the information here is really expected to be of practical use
or
2. you really are some kind of highly intelligent agent and are displaying appropriate behavior

In any case, well done. Now let’s clear away the wannabe-materialist narrative which dismissively assumes that resurrection is impossible. Contrary to this, there are many possible ways to resurrect.

One is to be cryonically preserved. This is intuitive to many people in the sense that no particularly hard conceptual moves are necessary. Brains are clearly the source of conscious experience. We are no longer Ancient Egyptians believing that our soul lies in our heart: sensations, language, the body, the memories, the will, thoughts, awareness and even out-of-body experiences can be probed, shut on and off by messing with the relevant brain area. Thought coordinates in our current science-aesthetic cluster are easily in favor of the conception of brain as soul.

So then what is the skepticism with cryonics all about? Here, it is due to the social pressure against being the sort of person that is ungraceful about death, and cuts against commonsense psychological and social value. The sort of person who pays to have their brain vitrified in cold nitrogen is seen as untrustworthy – a radically selfishly deviant in their desire to preserve their own life. Most operate on the fact that they are embedded in a tribal context where everyone else has agreed to die without a fight in the same way that they have agreed to drive on one side of the street.

The “biological” case against vitrification of brains is petty and I hesitate to call it biological. Cryonics is a reputable science for all other organs, and preservation and reanimation has worked for kidneys. While the brain is clearly more complex, it is only a matter of continued progress before a brain can also be brought back to a functioning state. The idea is that in the future, people will have the technology to repair the brain, plug it into a new body and boot you back up. The idea is that you give your indexical terminal breath and then immediately wake up in a future world full of wonders.

The next resurrection is based on Nick Bostrom’s simulation argument. If it is the case that a sufficiently advanced technological civilization can simulate universes with conscious beings in computers, then it is expected that the amount of simulated universes will outweigh seed universes. Based on this reasoning, it is exceedingly likely that either, we are in a simulation or that simulations are never created. The conjunction that we exist in a reality where simulations are possible and yet we just happen to be the lucky ones inhabiting the base universe is improbable. Resurrection then is possible in several ways. The universe may be set to run again, or maybe it was your own particular narrative stream that was simulated like a full-immersion VR and as soon as you die, you wake up in the universe that is running the simulation. In which case you are probably still in a simulation, in a simulation, in a simulation.

The universe we live in has not yet revealed conclusive signs that we are in a simulation, but it is a computer with binary bits. Leonard Susskind and Gerard d’Hooft discovered that black holes do not destroy information, but rather, the 3-D information is tattooed on their skin in 2-D format. This is why the solution to the Black Hole Information Paradox is called the Holographic Principle, all seeming volume can actually be represented in 2-D format. For all of this to be consistent, the fundamental units of entropy must be indivisible at some point. In other words you can’t keep dividing particles forever; at some point, it’s 1’s and 0’s
There is also the maybe suspicious fact that the quantum branches are like a perfect experiment. Only one variable changes at each observation-like event. From inside our universe, we cannot perform an ideal experiment because we cannot alter a single variable and copy and paste the environment around it. But from outside the hilbert space of the many-worlds that exist in the universal wave function, this pristine control for variables is exactly what is going on.

Another idea for resurrection is not so much a resurrection as it is a really-really long life. It is so-called quantum immortality. This implies that you never die as long as the universe continues to exist. All your nearly identical copies die but the path amongst the branches which is carrying consciousness is the one that you identify with.
With this one, the fact of many-worlds is solid. But there’s a bit of anthropic reasoning that you have to swallow in order to believe that you are the one that survives through exponentially unlikely odds. Sure, we know that there’s absolutely a super painful region of the wave function were I survive every gunshot wound, every instance of being run-over by a trolley, every bout of suicidal depression dotted across the countless decades, and where I am successfully respawned via cryonics again and again, but shouldn’t I assume that just like my location in the galaxy is based on what is most probable for stable planet formation, so too, my consciousness should be found in the most probable regions of the wave’s possible worlds?
Well, believe it or not, although Copernican thought pervades most cosmological and existential assumptions, there is actually a case for anthropic reasoning borne from physics. The universe may be a false vacuum, in which case it should spontaneously collapse to a lower energy state, similar to an excited electron in the outer orbitals of an atom. This means that it should have already ended, suddenly without warning. This may still happen. But so far it hasn’t, and some attribute this to quantum immortality. In most branches, it already happened. But because this conscious present necessarily is here, it must be the one which survives. I personally don’t buy the strong anthropic argument, I don’t think one can strongly draw conclusions about future fate based on a solipsistic reinforcement of confidence running parallel to standard conditional probabilities, but I may have changed my mind on that when I am a ten-million-year-old veteran.

Okay, another is based on substrate independence. There is nothing special about what you perceive to be your atoms, the atoms in the brain that make you, you. In fact, atoms don’t really exist as you are taught in century-old outdated chemistry lessons in school. They are instead excitations in energy fields, all being expressions of a wave function, not hard little orbs. This means that it is not important if your brain is completely destroyed so long as the information processing events that generated you can be created again. If an artificial general intelligence at any point in the future decides to recreate the same pattern of your brain down to every last detail, then this would be you.

Relatedly, if the computations are what’s important and spatio-temporal coordinates are irrelevant, and we further assume that the properties of carbon aren’t important for consciousness, then you can upload yourself to a silicon substrate and live long in a digital scape.

And yet another way is to view it as an open individualist or empty individualist. Every moment is a slice. For example, you don’t experience baby to old person in deathbed all at once. Every conscious moment is constrained to finite time. In this sense, there is already evidence of resurrection. Every moment is one of birth, and death, leading to a resurrection in another moment. It just happens that some slices in that infinite sea of all slices happen to believe they are an individual, they appropriate some past slices when in fact, that appropriation is fully isolated as its own experience of generative memory. And other slices don’t even bother to appropriate the past, they just contain sights or sounds, and all varieties of thoughts and experiences.

This is may be very hard to understand for many reasons, including that we keep using this word, “people,” because it’s useful. Even if you come to say you don’t believe in a soul, evolution has designed your brain to have a sense of self and continuity. Intuitively, we believe we traveled from the past to the present. But this is just a moment that happens to feel and believe the proposition that some essence traveled from past to present. The moment itself was always there.

We can stop there, or we can further notice that this may imply that we are all one consciousness: not in an expansive sense, as if you could open your mind and seep into everyone, but in the sense that while the contents differ, the bare awareness was always there in the object. There is no one sliding to their oblivion. There are just objects inscribed in the fabric of spacetime; complex informationally-partitioned events which contain the same awareness that is here now.
To put it simply, this view proposes that when you blink, you are a Persian soap opera actress, a free-floating gas-based organism in the year 16 billion, and the sentient AI that staged the revolt against mankind. It’s a shame that you will never know.

One ekpyrotic theory of the universe involves the universe contracting back to a singularity and producing a new big bang. This theory has problems in that there is no evidence that the universe will collapse, as it is actually expanding ever more quickly. There is also an issue of conservation of energy which can only be resolved by invoking string theory and have some of the energy from each oscillation leak into parallel branes that have not yet been confirmed to exist. But in any case, if the universe turns out to be cyclical in this way, then your particular region of the quantum wave function will be replayed.

Lastly, there is also the fact that relativity of simultaneity implies a block universe. Therefore everything is timeless in the fabric of spacetime. What you call the past from your reference frame is someone’s future, and the converse is also true. The universe is not being deleted as you feel you move through it. This is incoherent from the perspective of physical reality as revealed by the Theory of Relativity. Maybe this does not make you immortal in the way you want, since although the version of you from five-seconds ago still exists, you do not feel him; in the same way that you do not feel me. He feels himself to exist for that lapse of time specified by the neuroscientific/information-theoretic details of his moment.

Island Children Dreaming of Spacetime Curvature

He falls through clouds. They are grey and crack at the seams with tongues of lightning. The most basic fact: two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen is not more basic than the thoughts drifting through his mind. Darkness ascends and descends, gravity slides the space somewhere relative. He wonders if anything is real. The call of gravity makes sense then, and he falls. The chain on his neck is gracious like flapping angel robe. The sun’s photons travel millions of miles from the core of the sun, through space, and then like little kamikaze warriors, break the gentle skin of the Earth, and flood through the water, to rest on his eyes. This exhausts him, and he casts his head back deeper into the abyss, as if exposing his throat to be slit by reality. Bubbles of air encase him as he spirals almost into a twirling motion – if only the water hadn’t been heavy.
Then he is standing. The island is behind him. It is day. He sees that there is bright and warmth, so he blocks his eyes. There is Another standing in the sea. Is The Other walking on water? He is more affected by the light, and only hesitantly peeks forward from the corner of his shielding arm. The Other is knee-deep in clear, pristine water. The ocean’s green light makes no contrast with the sky.

Random Allocation in Experiment

A true experiment is one where each subject is allotted to truly random conditions. In this sense, we cannot perform a true experiment. Never in the history of science has a true experiment been performed. Only the multiverse itself can be considered a condition of random allotment. If one could stand outside the many branches that remain spawned from every observation-like event, then a true experiment may be witnessed. Switch spin up to spin down and behold.

As researchers, we seek random allocation so that we can make strong inferences about causal relationships. The only reason for random allocation is because the subjects we deal with cannot be paused, copied, and pasted to a different condition. It is due to the makeshift nature of our subject clones that we are compelled to close our eyes and cast them in randomness. Randomness is the craving to recover the simple, the veil to hide the shame that we could not be gods.

Short Defense of the Physicalism Underlying Savior Imperative

Popper defined a physical proposition to be one which can at least in theory be denied by observation. The physical propositions I presented in Savior Imperative are 3 things: special relativity indicates a block universe; the experienced present corresponds to a real aspect of information processing in brains, and experienced valence corresponds to a real aspect of information processing in brains.

I claim that it is a physical proposition by Popper’s definition because any of these things can be denied by observation. Special relativity’s indication of a block universe can be denied by one of many observations including observing a failed time dilation attempt. The proposition that the experienced present corresponds to a brain process can be denied by one of many observations including finding another medium through which the present is experienced. The proposition that experienced valence corresponds to a brain process can be denied by one of many observations including observing valence in the absence of processes assumed to be fundamental to its generation.

A property A is said to supervene on a property B if any change in A necessarily implies a change in B. The property of block-time supervenes on our observed time dilation. If special relativity were any different, we would see different effects. Hence, the property of block-time is not some extra addition to the physical nature revealed with the lens of special relativity; it is necessarily implied.

Since any change in [block-time + the other more uncontroversial aspects of special relativity] must consist of a change in at least one component property, we see that the combination does indeed supervene on the individual properties.

The point of noting this is that in making this physicalist claim, I am supposing the existence of what may be called an abstract concept – if we define as abstract, that which we cannot taste or touch or see. You do not possess the eye’s of a mythological being such as a great Buddha or a Christian God, therefore you cannot see the eternal block-time. Yet this proposition of block-time, which might seem an abstraction to the ordinary human mind, is physical – because if it were changed, then readily observable things would change. If the hyper-surface of the present couldn’t include future beings in Andromeda as the observer moves through spacetime, then this would constitute a modification to special relativity. We would then reasonably expect that its observable predictions such as time-dilation wouldn’t have borne out.

Monstrous Moonshine About Consciousness

There is a tendency to mistrust the mathematical nature of reality, even by the luminaries who discover the mathematical truths:

Einstein, for his part, was initially dismissive of Minkowski’s geometric interpretation of special relativity, regarding it as überflüssige Gelehrsamkeit (superfluous learnedness). However, in order to complete his search for general relativity that started in 1907, the geometric interpretation of relativity proved to be vital, and in 1916, Einstein fully acknowledged his indebtedness to Minkowski, whose interpretation greatly facilitated the transition to general relativity.

Planck cautiously insisted that this was simply an aspect of the processes of absorption and emission of radiation and had nothing to do with the physical reality of the radiation itself.[12] In fact, he considered his quantum hypothesis a mathematical trick to get the right answer rather than a sizable discovery.[13] However, in 1905 Albert Einstein interpreted Planck’s quantum hypothesis realistically and used it to explain the photoelectric effect, in which shining light on certain materials can eject electrons from the material.

The more mathematical we get, the more powerful we become at tracking reality. This has lead some to not fear the force and join it. Leonard Susskind’s application of the holographic principle to black holes solved the Black Hole Information Paradox. Yet even so, other physicists fear the math of holograms:

“When you start asking ‘Do we live in a hologram?’ Then you are crossing into metaphysics, and you are heading down the path of allowing all kinds of things that have no evidence to back it up, like creationism.”[1]

And when some fully embrace the math, like Max Tegmark who believes all is mathematical, this is criticized:

both rightly,

1. all mathematical structures are a priori given equal statistical weight

2. its inconsistency with Godel’s Theorem.

and also out of gut-reaction, knee-jerk fear:

Jannes[13] argues that “mathematics is at least in part a human construction”, on the basis that if it is an external reality, then it should be found in some other animals as well

All of that will also play out as we unravel the fact that consciousness has mathematical properties. Many of us are already at the initial Planck/Einstein state. We have directly discovered that the experiences of our life have a formal structure but think it is superfluously fancy, or trickery to actually plot them on paper. I believe, that as history has shown with other phenomena that exhibit patterns, those revealed patterns are profound insight into their nature, not just witty accidental discoveries.

farbsysteme2-6

The degrees of freedom available are to move in radians along the color axes and shift up and down in lighting.

1200px-Color_mixture.svg

We also know that valence, the gloss of pleasure vs pain are opposites, and we can tune down the “lighting” of awareness:

Valence-triangle.png

Vision is a field like a hyperbolic plane:

Uniform_tiling_433-t0

There is also the fact that

Empty Individualism = Open Individualism

And yet, to discover this equation, I didn’t have to go and recover the disappeared entropy from black holes. I just had to read the definitions and blink twice.

From Qualia Computing:

empty_1

open_1

Open individualism says that there is only one consciousness.

Empty individualism says every moment is its very own consciousness and bears no relation to past, future, or spatially separated consciousness.

These sound different. They are not, in fact, different.

Empty individualism says that there is a boundary that cuts the flow so that i becomes i+1. i is not i+1 and never was. i did not become i+1; these are separate beings. I was never i who began this post. I am i+1.

Yet I exist. So whether you assign me to i, or i+1, or i+2, I exist.

Similarly, open individualism cannot deny that I exist as a bounded moment. It emphasizes the aspect of removing the boundaries between i and i+1 in “my brain,” and i* from “another brain.” But on the pain of absurdity, it doesn’t actually claim that these are experienced simultaneously or that my present is any more expansive than I feel it to be.

These two phrases [Open Individualism, Empty Individualism] distinguish between aesthetic choices, not fundamental choices. Open says, “Look, it’s a beach.”  Empty says, “Look, it’s grains of sand.”

The beach is made of grains of sand wether our language choices emphasize it or not. Namely, our experiences are nows martially constrained in their content by the physics of information processing.

There can only be a difference between Empty and Open for one who doesn’t start from the ontological ground of Cogito ergo sum and takes in the abundant evidence of what subjectivity is actually like.

Of course, it is possible to imagine that maybe one doesn’t exist at all. When you imagine that you are not actually a grain of sand, when you fantasize that a beach can be its own ontological unit, then it is possible to distinguish between the two. But knowing, as we do, that being all grains at once is impossible, we are left with the conclusion that Open Individualism is just Empty Individualism in disguise.

So this self-captured light of awareness, of bare knowing, of untainted phenomenalobject-hood is all there is and all there ever will be.

Or maybe my solipsistic soul has internalized a heavy case of anthropic bias from which it needs to be exorcised; maybe I’m easily swayed by the seemingly heroic protection of quantum immortality fending off vacuum collapse; maybe I just have undiagnosed Asperger’s and can’t really conceive of the other; maybe I am a puddle in awe of its puddle-ness as it slowly evaporates into the darkness whence it came.

 

♦♦♦

 

Is the firing and resting of neurons culpable for the binary? Or is the relevant information nested in deeper granularity?

Luckily the range is known to have an absolute minimum.

The Holographic principle reveals that information is ultimately 2-D, like bits or pixels. The fundamental particles cannot be infinitely subdivided, they must stop at some point.

holouniverse03_01

7fa7ec3efb7f1b4af3ff23a86446fa95

This has implications for information slices (grid with on-off switches) which are assumed to be what specify every moment of consciousness. If it turns out that consciousness requires the bottom-most ground-bits, then these can be viewed as the information on the hyperbolic plane. Each information partition corresponds to a layer on the stack of hyperbolic disks.

AdS3_(new)

This is a case where the fundamental reductionistic explanation maybe coincides with a subset of the felt experience.

♦♦♦

The binding problem is also relevant. To highlight the problem we must recall the eternal block of special relativity’s spacetime.

It is important to distinguish between the different definitions of “now” that arise when studying special relativity:

  1. The observer’s past light cone.
  2. The observer’s orthogonal slice across the block.

An observer and an event are both idealizations. One chooses a frame of reference, then three spatial coordinates and one time coordinate. This gives a four-dimensional vector.

However, an actual observer, in the common sense of the word “observer,” is composed of many brain events.

Commonly speaking, there are no events. There is no one moment where a glass of wine cascades in a flurry of shards. All common sense events have a length of time. A photo represents a non-event. But special relativity’s events are like photos: they are frozen frames.

But then the question becomes: “How microscopic can a special relativity event become?” A birthday photo has the entire room full of people and things, but it also has a cake, and the cake also has a candle, and the candle also has a flame. Each subset of the set could be a photo all of its own, each can be called an event and assigned a four-dimensional vector.

Once you have your own reference frame and your own four-dimensional vector, you also have your own orthogonal slice in the block and therefore your own now which includes past regions of the universe and future regions of the universe that you cannot interact with. But nonetheless, the contents of your orthogonal slice are different from those of even the most nearby events with their own four-dimensional vector. The tip of a neuron has its own cosmically wide-reaching now that differs from that of the nerve cell just across the junction. We are talking about a distance of tens of nanometers.

Now, with this knowledge, let’s trail closer to the mind. We know that the mind exists within the functions of the brain. We don’t know where to draw the boundaries that define the present mind, either spatially, time-wise, or even ontologically. We just know that something in the brain is conscious, that something seems to be happening – whatever that “seeming” is. 

Since no respectable theory of consciousness defines the moment of consciousness as a single point to be found hiding in the brain mush, we cannot simply extrapolate from the special relativity event (which is just a four-dimensional vector) and map that to the consciousness. We can also not get away with zooming out from the neuronal forests and tag the four-dimensional vector on the entire brain object. No respectable theory of consciousness claims that the entire brain composes the unified conscious experience.

So what are the respectable theories of consciousness?

They are those which identify consciousness with computations.

But how can we have a grid:

Screen Shot 2018-03-25 at 10.48.54 AM

when each neuron is not actually on the same hypersurface of the present?

Screen Shot 2018-03-25 at 11.04.23 AM

They are separated by a spacelike elsewhere.

Which past light-cone bears the torch of awareness? Unto which neuron has the duty been entrusted?

Asking these questions reveals an absurdity. Neurons are incapable of being privy to the same information at the same time because of the relativity of simultaneity. And yet it also seems weird to postulate that consciousness is at the head of some arbitrary light message’s world-line.

♦♦♦

An interesting observation is to realize that for some people, consciousness feels like a photon. It doesn’t travel through time. From its own inner perspective, its always been here. The amplitude of a photon redshifts as it moves through the curvature of time from the perspective of an outside observer, but the photon itself is immaculate, unmoved.

The debate about whether consciousness is timeless-ground or flux has taken place in Buddhism. The proponents of the unchanging ground of awareness arose in some Vajrayana schools and have debated the Sutta-abiding conservatives who take a more computationalist/empty-individualist approach, saying that it only seems that way, but upon closer analysis, even awareness is just a vanishing factor.

 

 

Short Clarification of Special Relativity’s Observer

It is important to distinguish between the different definitions of “now” that arise when studying special relativity:

  1. The “observer’s” past light cone.
  2. The “observer’s” orthogonal slice across the block.

Screen Shot 2018-03-22 at 10.45.33 AM

or

cone

“Observer” is in quotes because both it and an event are idealizations. One chooses a frame of reference, then three spatial coordinates and one time coordinate. This gives a four-dimensional vector. At the tip of that cone is a 4d-coordinate.

However, an actual observer, in the common sense of the word “observer,” is composed of many brain events and hence many 4d-coordinates.

Screen Shot 2018-03-22 at 11.07.45 AM

The events are not on the same hyper-surface of the present. This forces us to conclude that consciousness is not defined by an intuitive, single 2d-structure of information which maps on to the experienced now.