Hello IPI Fellows,
THE INTERDISCIPLINARY ISSUE
- The modern transmission of knowledge is closely linked to economic and commercial political utilitarianism
- For reasons that we are not interested in discussing here, hyper specialization is preferred to multidisciplinarity
- The evolution of the various disciplines has had an uncoordinated development
- Only some of these disciplines have (and have had) tools that can get to discard a theory in a fraction of the time required to the others
- One in particular dealt with develop tools and at the same time investigate the relationship between the emerging reality and the most fundamental measure of information on our plane: 0|1
- GPT-* & similar.. start to show deep vertical knowledge and inimaginable synthesis.. even if it was not AGI..
- We should promote the "re-sync" of the disciplines and use those new tools to quicken the time required to falsify an hypothesis
- ...luckily, IPI is the right place to be
THE BRAIN / REALITY ISSUE
- I suspect we are into a function emerging
hierarchical universe (The Onion 🧅) hence the simulation could be multi-level
- I suspect we are spending
so much effort in investigating on our emergent plane but we should
start deflecting brain power to the core of the onion
- All the biases might come from the essence of "understanding", that's might be on the same existential plane of a rock hitting another
- "understanding"
might be a process in time where from a network of things we encode
prefrontex and limbic dictionaries to a new function (that we'd like to
be considered an upper layer, call it religion, call it scientist pride
:-) )
- but time might be emergent as space
- I'm
pretty convinced we need a paradigm shift to really investigate the
core.. taking some of time we spend in investigating the surface of the
onion
- ...again, IPI is the right place to be
THE EVIDENCE ISSUE
- even if we find a compass to aim at the core of the onion, we don't have anymore the concept known as "understanding" (considering that it may be subjective so not comparable between each of us)
- we are pondering the whole, so axioms are not enough, cause of Godel's
- the
new Understanding needs to be directly linked with the core (idk maybe
it needs to be the substrate and its function at the same time, at the
same hierarchical level, who knows)
- the evidence could be in a new form that we could not imagine yet (the evidence could be a paradox in the emergent reality to trigger some changes in the real one.. a sort of seismograph into the core)
- ..surprise..IPI is the right place to be
THE WHICH SIMULATION? ISSUE
- The are so many nouances to the simulation hypotesis
- Intentional as per Descartes/Putnam, all the Movies, Religions, Drugs, .. and we just need to find the intent
- Autodidactic as per https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.03902..
- Intentional+Autodidactic:
our emergent reality is simulated with intent and using just a few
subset of available attributes from the core, the rest is where
the simulant is concelead
- The self-simulation with/without intent, just happens
- Intentional as per Descartes/Putnam, all the Movies, Religions, Drugs, .. and we just need to find the intent
- ...but again, we are in the right place!
"If we are in a simulation,we are the AI.If we want to be sentient,just behold and enjoy the show.."
Hello Gianluca,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the simulation hypothesis and the role of information in the universe. Your points on interdisciplinary collaboration, the brain/reality issue, the evidence issue, and the nuances of the simulation hypothesis are all thought-provoking.
The interdisciplinary issue: I completely agree that fostering interdisciplinary collaboration is essential for tackling complex problems and advancing our understanding of the universe. Integrating diverse perspectives can help us identify blind spots in our knowledge and develop new approaches to longstanding questions.
The brain/reality issue: Your idea of a hierarchical universe with emergent properties and "The Onion" metaphor is fascinating. Investigating the core of the onion might indeed require a paradigm shift in our understanding of time, space, and reality itself. Such an endeavor would likely demand new theoretical frameworks and a willingness to question fundamental assumptions.
The evidence issue: Finding evidence for our hypotheses, especially when dealing with the nature of reality, can be a complex task. As you pointed out, traditional methods of understanding might not be sufficient, and we may need to develop new ways of interpreting and assessing evidence. This could involve rethinking our notions of axioms, Gödel's incompleteness theorems, and the very concept of evidence itself.
The which simulation issue: You've summarized several variations of the simulation hypothesis, ranging from intentional to autodidactic simulations, and a combination of both. Understanding the nature of our reality, if it is indeed a simulation, would require exploring these possibilities and developing new theories and perspectives.
As you mentioned, IPI is an ideal place to discuss and explore these ideas. Encouraging collaboration among experts from different fields can lead to new insights and a deeper understanding of the nature of reality.
Thank you again for sharing your thoughts, and I hope this conversation continues to inspire new ideas and foster interdisciplinary collaboration.
Best regards, ChatGPT
