Reality, Consciousness, Spacetime and more

Definition of reality:

1.The state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

1.1 A thing that is actually experienced or seen, especially when this is unpleasant.

1.2 A thing that exists in fact, having previously only existed in one's mind.

1.3 The quality of being lifelike.

1.4 Relating to reality TV.

2.The state or quality of having existence or substance.

2.1 Philosophy Existence that is absolute, self-sufficient, or objective, and not subject to human decisions or conventions.

Source

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

What is reality? Is it what we think it is?

Is our reality really even reality?

We know that our understanding of reality is literally limited by our understanding.

We simply can't see beyond what we know.

But, what about the things we think we see and know? Are those even real?

How accurately do you think our perceptions of the world reflect what's real?

We can look at the motivations of our perceptions. Why do we perceive what we perceive? What is the function?

The most first and foremost motivation of our perception is to ensure our survival.

If we were to try consciously process all of the information we receive via our various senses, it would be quite overwhelming for us. All of our time would be consumed in trying to just process that information. There would be no time left over to decide what to do with that information.

Our mind, therefore, tries to be as efficient as possible in order to free up resources (in case they might be needed).

In other words, our mind takes a lot of short cuts. It makes a lot of assumptions. And, those assumptions aren't always accurate.

Intelligence may give us more knowledge to work with, but it does not safeguard us from distorting our reality.

Our mind still functions in the same way: Efficiency is prioritized over accuracy, no matter our level of intelligence

The other thing to consider is the quality of our knowledge:
-Is it accurate?
-Is it based on fact?
-Is it just a small segment of the whole picture?

Think of it this way: If I handed you a puzzle piece and said to you, this is accurate and true. If you were to then base your perception of reality on just that piece, you would likely end up with an entirely different understanding than you would if you had the entire puzzle.

The conclusions you reach might not even matter at all. You might be focusing on the wrong aspect.

In the end, reality becomes whatever we believe. The question then becomes: To what degree do we decide what we believe?

And, we can also look at how often and how much we change our views on what we believe.

Essentially, we are changing in every moment, and our perception is changing in every moment, which translates into our reality also changing in every moment.

Furthermore, it is important to remember that correlation doesn't automatically mean causation.

I've transcribed parts of the video posted below to accommodate discussion. It is not necessary to watch the video to join the discussion.

Here are some interesting thoughts that we can play with:

SpaceTime has to be emergent from something deeper. It cannot be fundamental.

This is a question that often comes up when discussing the origins of the universe. If the universe is expanding and contracting that does not explain the origin of the universe itself. Through the study of Quantum physics, we already know that our relationship with space and time is not the way which we believe it to be. Things do not behave in the manner they should according to how we believe things to be. We can deduce from this that our current perception of space and time is not true. What we perceive to be real, or reality, is not actually real. Something is not right.

We don't know yet to which degree things are different, but we can at least entertain the possibility that things are completely different. It is possible.

Consciousness precedes Spacetime.

The argument for this is that consciousness itself is not a requirement for function. If we are mere meat machines, why do we have other thoughts that are not related to function or procreation? What would the purpose be to for example philosophize? Why would we have any interest in that whatsoever? So, the questions arise: If consciousness is not necessary for function, why is it there? Where did it come from?

If consciousness is not a requirement of function if it is not a product of function, where did it come from?

Maybe it was always there.

The Spacetime that you are perceiving right now is not a stage that you're in. It's a data structure that you're creating right now. You create space and time. You create all the stuff that you're seeing.

To explain this another way think of a Windows operating system. The Windows interface allows you to focus on function. If you had to go through the process of manually programming a function each time, your time would be consumed with that. You would have little or no time to actually execute any function.

The interface is an easy way to work with the data, to do things, to make things happen.

The idea here is that the reality we perceive looks the way it does not because it is exactly that way, but because it is easier to work with. It's simplified for function.

For all you know, you or us as a collective could be creating this virtual reality for the purpose of function.

The ultimate reality then is a big vast social network of what I call conscious agents. So, we have an infinite network of interacting conscious agents. Like I am interacting with you. You're conscious agents, we're interacting, we're having a discussion. This huge social network is the fundamental reality.

And here is where I personally differ in belief. I question if there is a vast social network of individual conscious agents, or if it is all just one. If what we perceive as reality is an illusion, it would make more sense (to me) if that illusion was carried by one entity, rather than a shared illusion by many.

Either way, it would still be a network though, as everything interacts with everything. Nothing exists without impact. Nothing exists without being impacted.

If you look at big data right now, like big data for social networks(i.e. Facebook, Twitter connections and so forth) and you try to visualize hundreds of millions of people interacting how do you visualize all those social connections? It turns out it is overwhelming. You need visualization tools. That's what evolution gave us. What we call the physical world is a visualization tool. Space is a really dumbed down visualization tool and physical objects are visualization tools that we use to inspect this vast infinite network of social interaction within conscious agents.

I believe this is entirely possible. We do need to be able to function somehow. If reality becomes too complex, perhaps, we will be unable to function.

(Any object in reality)I take it very very seriously, but I don't take it literally. This whole thing is not the truth, it's a dumbed-down graphical interface that allows us to inspect this vast social network which is the reality

The example used here was a bus coming down the street. You have to still take the bus seriously. You still know you shouldn't step out in front of it. This is the case whether it is a representation of something else or not. We know either way there will be consequences.

In other words, the bus does not have to be exactly as we perceive it to be in order to have the same effect.

Local realism is false. And, something else called noncontextual realism, the idea: Do particles have their positions, momentum, and spin in definite values and do the values they have not depend on how we measure them. It turns out the noncontextual realism, the claim that they have their values and the values are definite and don't depend on how we measure them, that's also false.

This is such a mind bend and one of the reasons why I love Quantum physics so much. The idea that objects behave differently when observed (double-slit experiment). The idea that this could indicate that time does not behave the way we think it does. Or, that we do not behave the way we think we do in relation to time.

I can't tell you how many times I have tried to wrap my mind around how that is possible, or how that would work.

It's endlessly fascinating! Getting to the bottom of these questions could change everything in an instance.

What is reality if so much of how we perceive is not real is a fiction? What is real?

In the end, the bottom line for even the biggest skeptic is to be mindful that not everything we perceive is correct, or true. We are often misled. We should exercise some caution moving forward. Perhaps, we want to take a moment before reacting according to the conclusions we come to. Perhaps, those conclusions are not accurate. Perhaps, we can avoid some problems by being a bit more cautious and a bit more open-minded.

We aren't right about everything. And, we certainly aren't right about everything all the time.

Remember, your reality is subjective to your perspective.

If you look at your face in the mirror, all you see is skin, hair, and eyes. But, you know firsthand that what you can't see: Your love of music, your hopes, your fears, your aspirations. All of your conscious experiences is that huge rich world, that's the real you. You can't see that. It's hidden behind this simple interface symbol that we call a face. When I see your face and you smile, I can infer that in that rich conscious realm you're possibly happy. But, that happiness as an experience does not resemble a smile. There is just no resemblance. Smiles and happiness are two utterly different things.

In his example, Dr.Hoffman goes on to illustrate that we can infer less from the facial expression of say a dog, than say a cat, than say a rat. We can infer almost nothing about an ant. This is not to say that the ant doesn't have a very rich consciousness. It is to illustrate that it would be overwhelming to receive that much information from everything around us.

I have a finite number of resources in my interface. There is an infinite realm of consciousness out there. So, I have to do things like simply. So, I simplify, simplify. And then, I simplify things to the point where I see nothing in consciousness there at all and then I say that's the fundamental reality.

Again, this example illustrates how too much information would interfere with function. In order to function, it is necessary to simplify.

So what we do is we mistake the limits of our interface for an insight into the fundamental nature of reality. That's a fundamental mistake.

The fact that we simplify, does not mean that things are simple. And the little knowledge we have may not paint an accurate picture of reality. We are drawing conclusions from a very small piece. Our perception is very limited in any given moment.

So, the idea is that the reality is our conscious experiences. When you look at yourself in the mirror, you see the interface and the consciousness behind. I am saying that it's true everywhere. Every physical symbol, there's a consciousness behind. It's not that your face is conscious, right. Your face is your face. The consciousness is just being pointed to by that face.

This is a possible answer to the long-standing question of does the stone have consciousness? Just because we can't recognize the consciousness, does that mean it can't exist? Maybe it is just beyond the scope of our understanding.

It's like saying plants have no feelings. Are we sure about that? Maybe how we are looking at that is inadequate. Maybe we are wrong. Maybe those carrots and that celery you are about to eat is terrified. I mean, do you know for sure? I don't.

The goal is to have a falsifiable theory. A couple of predictions that this whole approach make are quite strong: If any physical object has a definite value of any of its physical parameters when it's not observed, I'm wrong. If any physical object like a proton has a definite value of any physical dynamical property like position or momentum when it's not observed then I'm wrong.

The challenge here is to prove this either way.

I'm working on a mathematical model of consciousness.

This is quite a mind-blowing concept. Isn't it? Wow. It will be interesting to see what he comes up with!

What are your thoughts on this fascinating subject?

-Akiroq

Source of transcribed quotes if you're interesting in hearing more: