The simulation hypothesis has recently excited renewed interest, especially in the physics and philosophy communities. However, the hypothesis specifically concerns {computers} that simulate physical universes, which means that to properly investigate it we need to couple computer science theory with physics. Here I do this by exploiting the physical Church-Turing thesis. This allows me to introduce a preliminary investigation of some of the computer science theoretic aspects of the simulation hypothesis. In particular, building on Kleene's second recursion theorem, I prove (...) that it is mathematically possible for us to be in a simulation that is being run on a computer \textit{by us}. In such a case, there would be two identical instances of us; the question of which of those is ``really us'' is meaningless. I also show how Rice's theorem provides some interesting impossibility results concerning simulation and self-simulation; briefly describe the philosophical implications of fully homomorphic encryption for (self-)simulation; briefly investigate the graphical structure of universes simulating universes simulating universes, among other issues. I end by describing some of the possible avenues for future research that this preliminary investigation reveals. (shrink)

I have read many recent discussions of the limits of computation and the universe as computer, hoping to find some comments on the amazing work of polymath physicist and decision theorist David Wolpert but have not found a single citation and so I present this very brief summary. Wolpert proved some stunning impossibility or incompleteness theorems (1992 to 2008-see arxiv.org) on the limits to inference (computation) that are so general they are independent of the device doing the (...) computation, and even independent of the laws of physics, so they apply across computers, physics, and human behavior. They make use of Cantor's diagonalization, the liar paradox and worldlines to provide what may be the ultimate theorem in Turing Machine Theory, and seemingly provide insights into impossibility,incompleteness, the limits of computation,and the universe as computer, in all possible universes and all beings or mechanisms, generating, among other things,a non-quantum mechanical uncertainty principle and a proof of monotheism. (shrink)

I have read many recent discussions of the limits of computation and the universe as computer, hoping to find some comments on the amazing work of polymath physicist and decision theorist David Wolpert but have not found a single citation and so I present this very brief summary. Wolpert proved some stunning impossibility or incompleteness theorems (1992 to 2008-see arxiv.org) on the limits to inference (computation) that are so general they are independent of the device doing the (...) computation, and even independent of the laws of physics, so they apply across computers, physics, and human behavior. They make use of Cantor's diagonalization, the liar paradox and worldlines to provide what may be the ultimate theorem in Turing Machine Theory, and seemingly provide insights into impossibility, incompleteness, the limits of computation,and the universe as computer, in all possible universes and all beings or mechanisms, generating, among other things,a non- quantum mechanical uncertainty principle and a proof of monotheism. There are obvious connections to the classic work of Chaitin, Solomonoff, Komolgarov and Wittgenstein and to the notion that no program (and thus no device) can generate a sequence (or device) with greater complexity than it possesses. One might say this body of work implies atheism since there cannot be any entity more complex than the physical universe and from the Wittgensteinian viewpoint, ‘more complex’ is meaningless (has no conditions of satisfaction, i.e., truth-maker or test). Even a ‘God’ (i.e., a ‘device’ with limitless time/space and energy) cannot determine whether a given ‘number’ is ‘random’ nor can find a certain way to show that a given ‘formula’, ‘theorem’ or ‘sentence’ or ‘device’ (all these being complex language games) is part of a particular ‘system’. -/- Those wishing a comprehensive up to date framework for human behavior from the modern two systems view may consult my article The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mind and Language as Revealed in Wittgenstein and Searle 59p(2016). For all my articles on Wittgenstein and Searle see my e-book ‘The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mind and Language in Wittgenstein and Searle 367p (2016). Those interested in all my writings in their most recent versions may consult my e-book Philosophy, Human Nature and the Collapse of Civilization - Articles and Reviews 2006-2016’ 662p (2016). -/- All of my papers and books have now been published in revised versions both in ebooks and in printed books. -/- Talking Monkeys: Philosophy, Psychology, Science, Religion and Politics on a Doomed Planet - Articles and Reviews 2006-2017 (2017) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B071HVC7YP. -/- The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mind and Language in Ludwig Wittgenstein and John Searle--Articles and Reviews 2006-2016 (2017) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B071P1RP1B. -/- Suicidal Utopian Delusions in the 21st century: Philosophy, Human Nature and the Collapse of Civilization - Articles and Reviews 2006-2017 (2017) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0711R5LGX . (shrink)

나는 컴퓨터로 계산과 우주의 한계에 대한 많은 최근의 토론을 읽었습니다, polymath 물리학자 및 결정 이론가 데이비드 울퍼트의 놀라운 작품에 대한 몇 가지 의견을 찾을 수 있기를 바라고 있지만 하나의 인용을 발견하지 않은 그래서 나는이 매우 간단한 요약을 제시. Wolpert는 계산을 수행하는 장치와 는 별개이며 물리학법칙과는 무관하므로 컴퓨터, 물리학 및 인간의 행동에 적용되므로 추론(계산)에 대한 제한에 대해 놀라운 불가능또는 불완전성 정리(1992년에서 2008년 참조 arxiv dot org)를 입증했습니다. 그들은 캔터의 대각선화, 거짓말쟁이 역설 및 세계관을 사용하여 튜링 머신 이론의 궁극적 인 정리가 될 (...) 수있는 것을 제공하고, 겉보기에 불가능, 불완전성, 계산의 한계, 그리고 컴퓨터로서의 우주, 가능한 모든 우주와 모든 존재 또는 메커니즘에서, 생성, 비 양자 기계적 불확실성 및 증거. 차이틴, 솔로모노프, 코몰가로프, 비트겐슈타인의 고전 적 작품과 어떤 프로그램 (따라서 어떤 장치)이 소유보다 더 큰 복잡성시퀀스 (또는 장치)를 생성 할 수 없다는 개념에 명백한 연결이 있습니다. 이 작품의 몸은 물리적 우주보다 더 복잡한 어떤 실체가 있을 수 없고 비트겐슈타인의 관점에서 볼 때 '더 복잡한'은 의미가 없다고 말할 수 있습니다(즉, 진리를 제작자나 시험하는 조건은 없습니다). 심지어 '신'(즉, 무한한 시간과 에너지를 가진 '장치')은 주어진 '숫자'가 '무작위'인지 여부를 결정할 수없으며, 주어진 '수식', '정리' 또는 '문장' 또는 '장치'(이 모든 것이 복잡한 언어 게임)가 특정 '시스템'의 일부임을 보여줄 수 있는 특정 방법을 찾을 수 없습니다. 현대 의 두 systems보기에서인간의 행동에 대한 포괄적 인 최신 프레임 워크를 원하는 사람들은 내 책을 참조 할 수 있습니다'철학의 논리적 구조, 심리학, 민d와 루드비히 비트겐슈타인과 존 Searle의언어' 2nd ed (2019). 내 글의 더 많은 관심있는 사람들은 '이야기 원숭이를 볼 수 있습니다-철학, 심리학, 과학, 종교와 운명 행성에 정치 - 기사 및 리뷰 2006-2019 2nd 에드 (2019) 및 21st 세기 4번째 에드 (2019) 및 기타. (shrink)

Ich habe viele kürzliche Diskussionen über die Grenzen der Berechnung und das Universum als Computer gelesen, in der Hoffnung, einige Kommentare über die erstaunliche Arbeit des Polymath Physikers und Entscheidungstheoretikers David Wolpert zu finden, aber habe kein einziges Zitat gefunden und so präsentiere ich diese sehr kurze Zusammenfassung. Wolpert bewies einige verblüffende Unmöglichkeit oder Unvollständigkeit Theoreme (1992 bis 2008-siehe arxiv dot org) über die Grenzen der Schlussfolgerung (Berechnung), die so allgemein sind, dass sie unabhängig von dem Gerät, (...) das die Berechnung, und sogar unabhängig von den Gesetzen der Physik, so dass sie für Computer, Physik und menschliches Verhalten gelten. Sie nutzen Cantors Diagonalisierung, das Lügner-Paradoxon und die Weltlinien, um das vielleicht ultimative Theorem in turing Machine Theory zu liefern, und geben scheinbar Einblicke in Unmöglichkeit, Unvollständigkeit, die Grenzen der Berechnung und das Universum als Computer, in alle möglichen Universen und alle Wesen oder Mechanismen, was unter anderem ein nicht quantenmechanisches Unsicherheitsprinzip und einen Beweis für Monotheismus erzeugt. Es gibt offensichtliche Verbindungen zum klassischen Werk von Chaitin, Solomonoff, Komolgarov und Wittgenstein und zu der Vorstellung, dass kein Programm (und damit kein Gerät) eine Sequenz (oder ein Gerät) mit größerer Komplexität erzeugen kann, als es besitzt. Man könnte sagen, dass dieses Werk den Atheismus impliziert, da es keine Entität geben kann, die komplexer ist als das physikalische Universum, und aus Wittgensteins Sicht ist "komplexer" bedeutungslos (hat keine Bedingungen der Befriedigung, d.h. Wahrheitsmacher oder Test). Selbst ein "Gott" (das heist ein "Gerät" mit unbegrenzter Zeit/Raum und Energie) kann weder bestimmen, ob eine bestimmte "Zahl" "zufällig"ist, noch einen bestimmten Weg finden, um nachzuweisen, dass eine bestimmte "Formel", "Satz" oder "Satz" oder "Gerät" (alles komplexe Sprachspiele) Teil eines bestimmten "Systems" ist. Wer aus der modernen zweisystems-Sichteinen umfassenden, aktuellen Rahmen für menschliches Verhalten wünscht, kann mein Buch "The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mindand Language in Ludwig Wittgenstein and John Searle' 2nd ed (2019) konsultieren. Diejenigen,die sich für mehr meiner Schriften interessieren, können Talking Monkeys--Philosophie, Psychologie, Wissenschaft, Religion und Politik auf einem verdammten Planeten --Artikel und Rezensionen 2006-2019 2nd ed (2019) und Suicidal Utopian Delusions in the 21st Century 4th ed (2019) und andere sehen. (shrink)

He leído muchas discusiones recientes sobre los límites de la computación y el universo como computadora, con la esperanza de encontrar algunos comentarios sobre el increíble trabajo del físico polimatemático y teórico de la decisión David Wolpert pero no han encontrado una sola citación y así que presento esta muy breve Resumen. Wolpert demostró algunos teoremas sorprendentes de imposibilidad o incompletos (1992 a 2008-ver arxiv dot org) en los límites de la inferencia (computación) que son tan generales (...) que son independientes del dispositivo que hace el cómputo, e incluso independiente de las leyes de la física, por lo que se aplican a través de computadoras, física y comportamiento humano. Hacen uso de la Diagonalización de cantor, la paradoja mentirosa y las líneas del mundo para proporcionar lo que puede ser el teorema definitivo en la teoría de la máquina de Turing, y aparentemente proporcionan información sobre la imposibilidad, la incompleta, los límites de la computación, y el universo como computadora, en todos los universos posibles y todos los seres o mecanismos, generando, entre otras cosas, un principio de incertidumbre mecánica no cuántica y una prueba de monoteísmo. Hay conexiones obvias al trabajo clásico de Chaitin, Solomonoff, Komolgarov y Wittgenstein y a la noción de que ningún programa (y por lo tanto ningún dispositivo) puede generar una secuencia (o dispositivo) con mayor complejidad de la que posee. Uno podría decir que este cuerpo de trabajo implica el ateísmo, ya que no puede haber ninguna entidad más compleja que el universo físico y desde el punto de vista de Wittgensteinian, ' más complejo ' carece de sentido (no tiene condiciones de satisfacción, es decir, creador de la verdad o prueba). Incluso un ' Dios ' (es decir, un ' device' con tiempo/espacio ilimitado y energía) no puede determinar si un ' número ' dado es ' aleatorio ', ni encontrar una cierta manera de demostrar que una determinada "fórmula", "teorema" o "frase" o "dispositivo" (todos estos son juegos de lenguaje complejos) es parte de un "sistema" en particular. Aquellos que deseen un marco completo hasta la fecha para el comportamiento humano de la moderna Dos Sistemas Punto de Vista puede consultar mi libro 'La estructura lógica de la filosofía, la psicología, la mente y lenguaje En Ludwig Wittgenstein y John Searle ' 2Nd Ed (2019). Los interesados en más de mis escritos pueden ver 'Monos parlantes--filosofía, psicología, ciencia, religión y política en un planeta condenado--artículos y reseñas 2006-2017' 3Rd Ed (2019) y otras. (shrink)

J’ai lu de nombreuses discussions récentes sur les limites du calcul et de l’univers en tant qu’ordinateur, dans l’espoir de trouver quelques commentaires sur le travail étonnant du physicien polymathe et théoricien de la décision David Wolpert, mais n’ont pas trouvé une seule citation et je présente donc ce résumé très bref. Wolpert s’est avéré quelques théoricaux d’impossibilité ou d’incomplétude renversants (1992 à 2008-voir arxiv dot org) sur les limites de l’inférence (computation) qui sont si généraux qu’ils (...) sont indépendants de l’appareil faisant le calcul, et même indépendamment des lois de la physique, ainsi ils s’appliquent à travers les ordinateurs, la physique, et le comportement humain. Ils utilisent la diagonalisation de Cantor, le paradoxe menteur et les worldlines (lignes du monde) pour fournir ce qui peut être le théorème ultime dans Turing Machine Theory, et apparemment fournir des aperçus de l’impossibilité, l’incomplétude, les limites du calcul, et l’univers comme ordinateur, dans tous les univers possibles et tous les êtres ou mécanismes possibles, générant, entre autres, un principe d’incertitude mécanique non quantique et une preuve de monothéisme. Il existe des connexions évidentes à l’œuvre classique de Chaitin, Solomonoff, Komolgarov et Wittgenstein et à l’idée qu’aucun programme (et donc aucun dispositif) ne peut générer une séquence (ou un dispositif) avec une plus grande complexité qu’il ne possède. On pourrait dire que cet ensemble de travaux implique l’athéisme puisqu’il ne peut y avoir d’entité plus complexe que l’univers physique et du point de vue wittgensteinien, « plus complexe » n’a aucun sens (n’a pas de conditions de satisfaction, c’est-à-dire véridique ou test). Même un « Dieu » (c’est-à-dire un « dispositif » avec un temps/ espace et une énergie illimité) ne peut pas déterminer si un « nombre » donné est « aléatoire», ni trouver un certain moyen de montrer qu’une « formule » donnée, un « théorème » ou une « phrase » ou un « dispositif » (tous ces jeux de langage complexes) fait partie d’un « système » particulier. Ceux qui souhaitent un cadre complet à jour pour le comportement humain de la vue moderne de deux systemes peuvent consulter mon livre 'The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mind and Language in Ludwig Wittgenstein and John Searle' 2nd ed (2019). Ceux qui s’intéressent à plus de mes écrits peuvent voir 'Talking Monkeys --Philosophie, Psychologie, Science, Religion et Politique sur une planète condamnée --Articles et revues 2006-2019 2ème ed (2019) et Suicidal Utopian Delusions in the 21st Century 4th ed (2019) et autres. (shrink)

Saya telah membaca banyak diskusi baru-baru ini batas komputasi dan alam semesta sebagai komputer, berharap untuk menemukan beberapa komentar pada karya menakjubkan fisikawan polimatematika dan teori keputusan David Wolpert tetapi belum menemukan satu rujukan dan jadi aku menyajikan ringkasan ini sangat singkat. Wolpert terbukti beberapa impotensi yang menakjubkan atau teorema ketidaklengkapan (1992 untuk 2008-Lihat arxiv dot org) pada batas untuk kesimpulan (perhitungan) yang begitu umum mereka independen dari perangkat melakukan komputasi, dan bahkan independen dari hukum fisika, sehingga (...) mereka berlaku di seluruh komputer, fisika, dan perilaku manusia. Mereka memanfaatkan diagonalisasi Cantor, paradoks liar dan worldlines untuk memberikan apa yang mungkin menjadi teorema utama dalam teori mesin Turing, dan tampaknya memberikan wawasan ketidakmungkinan, ketidaklengkapan, batas komputasi, dan alam semesta sebagai komputer, di semua semesta yang mungkin dan semua makhluk atau mekanisme, menghasilkan, antara lain, non-kuantum prinsip ketidakpastian mekanik dan bukti monoteisme. Ada hubungan yang jelas dengan karya klasik Chaitin, Solomonoff, Komolgarov dan Wittgenstein dan dengan anggapan bahwa tidak ada program (dan dengan demikian tidak ada perangkat) dapat menghasilkan urutan (atau perangkat) dengan kompleksitas yang lebih besar daripada memiliki. Orang mungkin mengatakan bahwa tubuh kerja menyiratkan ateisme karena tidak dapat ada entitas yang lebih kompleks daripada alam semesta fisik dan dari sudut pandang Wittgensteinian, ' lebih kompleks ' tidak berarti (tidak memiliki kondisi kepuasan, yaitu, pembuat kebenaran atau tes). Bahkan ' Allah ' (yaitu, sebuah ' device'dengan waktu tak terbatas/ruang dan energi) tidak dapat menentukan apakah yang diberikan ' nomor ' adalah ' acak ', atau menemukan cara tertentu untuk menunjukkan bahwa diberikan ' formula ', ' teorema ' atau ' kalimat ' atau ' perangkat ' (semua ini menjadi permainan bahasa yang kompleks) adalah bagian dari ' sistem ' tertentu. Mereka yang ingin komprehensif up to date kerangka perilaku manusia dari dua systems tampilan modern dapat berkonsultasi buku saya 'struktur Logis filsafat, psikologi, mind dan bahasa dalam Ludwig wittgenstein dan John Searle ' 2nd Ed (2019). Mereka yang tertarik pada tulisan saya lebih mungkin melihat 'berbicara monyet--filsafat, psikologi, ilmu, agama dan politik di planet yang ditakdirkan--artikel dan ulasan 2006-2019 2nd Ed (2019) dan bunuh diri utopian delusi di 21st Century 4th Ed (2019). (shrink)

I have read many recent discussions of the limits of computation and the universe as computer, hoping to find some comments on the amazing work of polymath physicist and decision theorist David Wolpert but have not found a single citation and so I present this very brief summary. Wolpert proved some stunning impossibility or incompleteness theorems (1992 to 2008-see arxiv dot org) on the limits to inference (computation) that are so general they are independent of the device (...) doing the computation, and even independent of the laws of physics, so they apply across computers, physics, and human behavior. They make use of Cantor's diagonalization, the liar paradox and worldlines to provide what may be the ultimate theorem in Turing Machine Theory, and seemingly provide insights into impossibility, incompleteness, the limits of computation, and the universe as computer, in all possible universes and all beings or mechanisms, generating, among other things, a non- quantum mechanical uncertainty principle and a proof of monotheism. There are obvious connections to the classic work of Chaitin, Solomonoff, Komolgarov and Wittgenstein and to the notion that no program (and thus no device) can generate a sequence (or device) with greater complexity than it possesses. One might say this body of work implies atheism since there cannot be any entity more complex than the physical universe and from the Wittgensteinian viewpoint, ‘more complex’ is meaningless (has no conditions of satisfaction, i.e., truth-maker or test). Even a ‘God’ (i.e., a ‘device’with limitless time/space and energy) cannot determine whether a given ‘number’ is ‘random’, nor find a certain way to show that a given ‘formula’, ‘theorem’ or ‘sentence’ or ‘device’ (all these being complex language games) is part of a particular ‘system’. -/- Those wishing a comprehensive up to date framework for human behavior from the modern two systems view may consult my book ‘The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mind and Language in Ludwig Wittgenstein and John Searle’ 2nd ed (2019). Those interested in more of my writings may see ‘Talking Monkeys--Philosophy, Psychology, Science, Religion and Politics on a Doomed Planet--Articles and Reviews 2006-2019 2nd ed (2019) and Suicidal Utopian Delusions in the 21st Century 4th ed (2019) . (shrink)

Ho letto molte recenti discussioni sui limiti del calcolo e dell'universo come computer, sperando di trovare alcuni commenti sull'incredibile lavoro del fisico polimatematico e del teorista delle decisioni David Wolpert, ma non ho trovato una sola citazione e quindi presento questo brevissimo riassunto. Wolpert si dimostrò una straordinaria impossibilità o incompletezza teoremi (1992-2008-see arxiv dot org) sui limiti dell'inferenza (calcolo) che sono così generali che sono indipendenti dal dispositivo che fa il calcolo, e anche indipendenti dalle leggi (...) della fisica, in modo che si applichino tra computer, fisica e comportamento umano. Fanno uso della diagonalizzazione di Cantor, del paradosso bugiardo e delle linee del mondo per fornire quello che potrebbe essere il teorema definitivo nella Teoria delle Macchine di Turing, e apparentemente forniscono intuizioni sull'impossibilità, l'incompletezza, i limiti del calcolo, e l'universo come computer, in tutti gli universi possibili e in tutti gli esseri o meccanismi, generando, tra le altre cose, un principio di incertezza meccanica non quantistica e una prova di monoteismo. Ci sono evidenti connessioni con l'opera classica di Chaitin, Solomonoff, Komolgarov e Wittgenstein e alla nozione che nessun programma (e quindi nessun dispositivo) può generare una sequenza (o dispositivo) con maggiore complessità di quella che possiede. Si potrebbe dire che questo corpo di lavoro implica l'ateismo poiché non può esserci alcuna entità più complessa dell'universo fisico e dal punto di vista della Wittgensteinian, "più complesso" non ha senso (non ha condizioni di soddisfazione, cioè, creatore di verità o test). Anche un 'Dio' (cioè un 'dispositivo'con tempo/spazio illimitato ed energia) non può, determinare se un dato "numero" è 'casuale', né trovare un modo per dimostrare che una determinata "formula", "teorema" o "sentenza" o "dispositivo" (tutti questi sono giochi linguistici complessi) fa parte di un particolare "sistema". Coloro che desiderano un quadro aggiornato completo per il comportamento umano dalla moderna vista a due systems possono consultare il mio libro 'La struttura logica dellafilosofia, psicologia, Mind e il linguaggio in Ludwig Wittgenstein e John Searle' 2nd ed (2019). Coloro che sono interessati a più dei miei scritti possono vedere 'TalkingMonkeys--Filosofia, Psicologia, Scienza, Religione e Politica su un Pianeta Condannato--Articoli e Recensioni 2006-2019nd ed (2019) e Suicidal Utopian Delusions nel 21st Century 4th ed (2019) . (shrink)

Eu li muitas discussões recentes sobre os limites da computação e do universo como computador, na esperança de encontrar alguns comentários sobre o trabalho surpreendente do físico polimatemático e teórico da decisão David Wolpert, mas não encontrei uma única citação e assim que eu apresento este muito breve Resumo. Wolpert provou alguma impossibilidade impressionante ou teoremas da incompletude (1992 a 2008-Veja arxiv dot org) nos limites à inferência (computação) que são tão gerais que são independentes do dispositivo (...) que faz a computação, e mesmo independente das leis da física, para que eles se apliquem em computadores, física e comportamento humano. Eles fazem uso da diagonalização de cantor, o paradoxo mentiroso e worldlines (linhas do mundo) para fornecer o que pode ser o teorema final na teoria da máquina de Turing, e, aparentemente, fornecer insights sobre a impossibilidade, incompletude, os limites da computação, e do universo como computador, em todos os universos possíveis e todos os seres ou mecanismos, gerando, entre outras coisas, um princípio de incerteza mecânica não quântica e uma prova de monoteísmo. Há umas conexões óbvias ao trabalho clássico de Chaitin, Solomonoff, Komolgarov e Wittgenstein e à noção que nenhum programa (e assim nenhum dispositivo) pode gerar uma seqüência (ou dispositivo) com maior complexidade do que possui. Pode-se dizer que este corpo de trabalho implica ateísmo, uma vez que não pode haver qualquer entidade mais complexa do que o universo físico e do ponto de vista Wittgensteiniano, ' mais complexo ' é sem sentido (não tem condições de satisfação, ou seja, criador de verdade ou teste). Mesmo um ' Deus ' (ou seja, um ' dispositivo ' com tempo ilimitado/espaço e energia) não pode determinar se um determinado ' número ' é ' aleatório ', nem encontrar uma determinada maneira de mostrar que uma determinada ' fórmula ', ' teorema ' ou ' sentença ' ou ' Device ' (todos estes sendo linguagem complexa jogos) faz parte de um determinado «sistema». Aqueles que desejam um quadro até à data detalhado para o comportamento humano da opinião moderna dos dois sistemas consultar meu livros Falando Macacos 3ª Ed (2019), A Estrutura Lógica da Filosofia, Psicologia, Mente e Linguagem em Ludwig Wittgenstein e John Searle 2a Ed (2019), Suicídio Pela Democracia,4aEd(2019), Entendendo as Conexões entre Ciência, Filosofia, Psicologia, Religião, Política e Economia Artigos e Análises 2006-2019 (2019), Ilusões Utópicas Suicidas no 21St século 5a Ed (2019), A Estrutura Lógica do Comportamento Humano (2019), e A Estrutura Lógica da Consciência (2019) y outras. (shrink)

[This is an edited version of a keynote talk at the conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) on November 28, 2022, with some minor additions and subtractions.] -/- There has recently been widespread discussion of whether large language models might be sentient or conscious. Should we take this idea seriously? I will break down the strongest reasons for and against. Given mainstream assumptions in the science of consciousness, there are significant obstacles to consciousness in current models: for example, their (...) lack of recurrent processing, a global workspace, and unified agency. At the same time, it is quite possible that these obstacles will be overcome in the next decade or so. I conclude that while it is somewhat unlikely that current large language models are conscious, we should take seriously the possibility that successors to large language models may be conscious in the not-too-distant future. (shrink)

What are the philosophical views of professional philosophers, and how do these views change over time? The 2020 PhilPapers Survey surveyed around 2000 philosophers on 100 philosophical questions. The results provide a snapshot of the state of some central debates in philosophy, reveal correlations and demographic effects involving philosophers' views, and reveal some changes in philosophers' views over the last decade.

What are the philosophical views of contemporary professional philosophers? We surveyed many professional philosophers in order to help determine their views on 30 central philosophical issues. This article documents the results. It also reveals correlations among philosophical views and between these views and factors such as age, gender, and nationality. A factor analysis suggests that an individual's views on these issues factor into a few underlying components that predict much of the variation in those views. The results of a metasurvey (...) also suggest that many of the results of the survey are surprising: philosophers as a whole have quite inaccurate beliefs about the distribution of philosophical views in the profession. (shrink)

For Shepherd, how many things exist? On the one hand, it looks like the answer is going to be many. It is a central tent of Shepherd's philosophical system that causation is a relation whereby two or more objects combine to create a third. Since there are many instances of this causal relation, there must be many objects in the world. On the other hand, there are several moments throughout her writing where Shepherd indicates that the distinction between causes and (...) effects is in some sense unreal, and that while the world appears to us to consist of many distinct objects interacting causally, really there is just one thing and its merely nominally distinct parts. I argue that Shepherd is an ontological pluralist, and the texts that appear to express a commitment to ontological monism are best understood as expressing ontological holism instead. (shrink)

Inspired by Rudolf Carnap's Der Logische Aufbau Der Welt, David J. Chalmers argues that the world can be constructed from a few basic elements. He develops a scrutability thesis saying that all truths about the world can be derived from basic truths and ideal reasoning. This thesis leads to many philosophical consequences: a broadly Fregean approach to meaning, an internalist approach to the contents of thought, and a reply to W. V. Quine's arguments against the analytic and the a (...) priori. Chalmers also uses scrutability to analyze the unity of science, to defend a conceptual approach to metaphysics, and to mount a structuralist response to skepticism. Based on the 2010 John Locke lectures, Constructing the World opens up debate on central philosophical issues involving language, consciousness, knowledge, and reality. This major work by a leading philosopher will appeal to philosophers in all areas. This entry contains uncorrected proofs of front matter, chapter 1, and first excursus. (shrink)

Does consciousness collapse the quantum wave function? This idea was taken seriously by John von Neumann and Eugene Wigner but is now widely dismissed. We develop the idea by combining a mathematical theory of consciousness (integrated information theory) with an account of quantum collapse dynamics (continuous spontaneous localization). Simple versions of the theory are falsified by the quantum Zeno effect, but more complex versions remain compatible with empirical evidence. In principle, versions of the theory can be tested by experiments with (...) quantum computers. The upshot is not that consciousness-collapse interpretations are clearly correct, but that there is a research program here worth exploring. (shrink)

The unpleasantness of pain motivates action. Hence many philosophers have doubted that it can be accounted for purely in terms of pain’s possession of indicative representational content. Instead, they have explained it in terms of subjects’ inclinations to stop their pains, or in terms of pain’s imperative content. I claim that such “noncognitivist” accounts fail to accommodate unpleasant pain’s reason-giving force. What is needed, I argue, is a view on which pains are unpleasant, motivate, and provide reasons in virtue of (...) possessing content that is indeed indicative, but also, crucially, evaluative. (shrink)

Pain asymbolia is a rare condition caused by brain damage, usually in adulthood. Asymbolics feel pain but appear indifferent to it, and indifferent also to visual and verbal threats. How should we make sense of this? Nikola Grahek thinks asymbolics’ pains are abnormal, lacking a component that make normal pains unpleasant and motivating. Colin Klein thinks that what is abnormal is not asymbolics’ pains, but asymbolics: they have a psychological deficit making them unresponsive to unpleasant pain. I argue that an (...) illuminating account requires elements of both views. Asymbolic pains are indeed abnormal, but they are abnormal because asymbolics are. I agree with Klein that asymbolics are incapable of caring about their bodily integrity; but I argue against him that, if this is to explain not only their indifference to visual and verbal threat, but also their indifference to pain, we must do the following: (i) take asymbolics’ lack of bodily care not as an alternative to, but as an explanation of their pains’ missing a component, and (ii) claim that the missing component consists in evaluative content. Asymbolia, I conclude, reveals not only that unpleasant pain is composite, but that its ‘hedomotive component’ is evaluative. (shrink)

How should one react when one has a belief, but knows that other people—who have roughly the same evidence as one has, and seem roughly as likely to react to it correctly—disagree? This paper argues that the disagreement of other competent inquirers often requires one to be much less confident in one’s opinions than one would otherwise be.

This paper responds to comments and criticisms by Stefan Brandt and Eva-Maria Jung, directed at the book "Know-how as Competence. A Rylean Responsibilist Account".

How should one react when one has a belief, but knows that other people—who have roughly the same evidence as one has, and seem roughly as likely to react to it correctly—disagree? This paper argues that the disagreement of other competent inquirers often requires one to be much less confident in one’s opinions than one would otherwise be.

Conceptual engineering is the design, implementation, and evaluation of concepts. Conceptual engineering includes or should include de novo conceptual engineering (designing a new concept) as well as conceptual re-engineering (fixing an old concept). It should also include heteronymous (different-word) as well as homonymous (same-word) conceptual engineering. I discuss the importance and the difficulty of these sorts of conceptual engineering in philosophy and elsewhere.

Cartesian arguments for global skepticism about the external world start from the premise that we cannot know that we are not in a Cartesian scenario such as an evil-demon scenario, and infer that because most of our empirical beliefs are false in such a scenario, these beliefs do not constitute knowledge. Veridicalist responses to global skepticism respond that arguments fail because in Cartesian scenarios, many or most of our empirical beliefs are true. Some veridicalist responses have been motivated using verificationism, (...) externalism, and coherentism. I argue that a more powerful veridicalist response to global skepticism can be motivated by structuralism, on which physical entities are understood as those that play a certain structural role. I develop the structuralist response and address objections. (shrink)

In the pure powers ontology (PPO), basic physical properties have wholly dispositional essences. PPO has clear advantages over categoricalist ontologies, which suffer from familiar epistemological and metaphysical problems. However, opponents argue that because it contains no qualitative properties, PPO lacks the resources to individuate powers, and generates a regress. The challenge for those who take such arguments seriously is to introduce qualitative properties without reintroducing the problems that PPO was meant to solve. In this paper, I distinguish the core claim (...) of PPO: (i) basic physical properties have dispositional essences, from a hitherto unnoticed assumption: (ii) the dispositional essences of basic physical properties exclusively involve type-causal relations to other basic physical properties. I reject (ii), making room for a structuralist ontology in which all basic physical properties are pure powers, individuated by their places in a causal structure that includes not only other powers, but also physically realized qualitative properties such as shapes, patterns and structures. Such qualities individuate pure powers in the way that non-mental input and output properties individuate realized mental properties in functionalist theories of mind, except that here it is basic physical powers that are individuated by relations to realized non-powers. I distinguish one Platonic and two Aristotelian version of this theory, and argue that the Aristotelian versions require that grounding is not always a relative fundamentality relation, because the powers ground the qualities that individuate them. By considering ontic structural realism, I argue that symmetric grounding is the best way to make sense of relational individuation in structuralist ontologies, and is therefore no additional commitment of the one proposed here. (shrink)

Does the capacity to think require the capacity to sense? A lively debate on this topic runs throughout the history of philosophy and now animates discussions of artificial intelligence. Many have argued that AI systems such as large language models cannot think and understand if they lack sensory grounding. I argue that thought does not require sensory grounding: there can be pure thinkers who can think without any sensory capacities. As a result, the absence of sensory grounding does not entail (...) that large language models cannot think or understand. I also consider to what extent quasi-sensory grounding can at least boost the performance of a language model. (shrink)

Several different quantum gravity research programmes suggest, for various reasons, that spacetime is not part of the fundamental ontology of physics. This gives rise to the problem of empirical coherence: if fundamental physical entities do not occupy spacetime or instantiate spatiotemporal properties, how can fundamental theories concerning those entities be justified by observation of spatiotemporally located things like meters, pointers and dials? I frame the problem of empirical coherence in terms of entailment: how could a non-spatiotemporal fundamental theory entail spatiotemporal (...) evidence propositions? Solutions to this puzzle can be classified as realist or antirealist, depending on whether or not they posit a non-fundamental spacetime structure grounded in or caused by the fundamental structure. These approaches place different constraints on our everyday concepts of space and time. Applying lessons from the philosophy of mind, I argue that only realism is both conceptually plausible and suitable for addressing the problem at hand. I suggest a role functionalist version of realism, which is consistent with both grounding and causation, and according to which our everyday concepts reveal something of the true nature of emergent spacetime. (shrink)

Responding rationally to the information that others disagree with one’s beliefs requires assessing the epistemic credentials of the opposing beliefs. Conciliatory accounts of disagreement flow in part from holding that these assessments must be independent from one’s own initial reasoning on the disputed matter. I argue that this claim, properly understood, does not have the untoward consequences some have worried about. Moreover, some of the difficulties it does engender must be faced by many less conciliatory accounts of disagreement.

Hylomorphists hold that substances are, in some sense, composites of matter and form. The form of a substance is typically taken to play a fundamental role in determining the unity or identity of the whole. Staunch hylomorphists think that this role is of a kind that precludes the ontological reduction of form to the physical and thus take their position to be inconsistent with physicalism. Forms, according to staunch hylomorphism, play a fundamental role in grounding their bearers’ proper parts and (...) that, it seems, rules out the physical grounding of form itself. I shall develop a physicalist version of hylomorphism that treats form as geometric structure and which, I shall argue, entails many of the central theses endorsed by staunch hylomorphists. Based on Shoemaker’s notion of conditional powers, I shall argue that the geometric structures of complex wholes are the conditions on at least some of the conditional powers of their bearers’ proper parts, transforming those powers into powers simpliciter. Thus, forms play a fundamental role in the dynamical evolution of the physical world, but without bestowing causal powers themselves and hence without violating the causal closure of the physical domain. If a substance’s proper parts are taken to be individuated by their powers simpliciter, then they derive their identities from their places in the substantial whole, which thus determines the identities of its proper parts without changing their intrinsic natures. (shrink)

How much should your confidence in your beliefs be shaken when you learn that others – perhaps 'epistemic peers' who seem as well-qualified as you are – hold beliefs contrary to yours? This article describes motivations that push different philosophers towards opposite answers to this question. It identifies a key theoretical principle that divides current writers on the epistemology of disagreement. It then examines arguments bearing on that principle, and on the wider issue. It ends by describing some outstanding questions (...) that thinking about this issue raises. (shrink)

A natural view of testimony holds that a source's statements provide one with evidence about what the source believes, which in turn provides one with evidence about what is true. But some theorists have gone further and developed a broadly analogous view of memory. According to this view, which this essay calls the “diary model,” one's memory ordinarily serves as a means for one's present self to gain evidence about one's past judgments, and in turn about the truth. This essay (...) rejects the diary model's analogy between memory and testimony from one's former self, arguing first that memory and a diary differ with respect to their psychological roles, and second that this psychological difference underwrites important downstream epistemic differences. The resulting view stands opposed to prominent discussions of memory and testimony, which either, like the diary model, treat memory by analogy to what we naively wish to say about testimony, or which instead attempt to extend to testimony the epistemically preservative role of memory. (shrink)

This is a collective study of the epistemic significance of disagreement: twelve contributors explore rival responses to the problems that it raises for philosophy. They develop our understanding of epistemic phenomena that are central to any thoughtful engagement with others' beliefs.

Do psychological traits predict philosophical views? We administered the PhilPapers Survey, created by David Bourget and David Chalmers, which consists of 30 views on central philosophical topics (e.g., epistemology, ethics, metaphysics, philosophy of mind, and philosophy of language) to a sample of professional philosophers (N = 314). We extended the PhilPapers survey to measure a number of psychological traits, such as personality, numeracy, well-being, lifestyle, and life experiences. We also included non-technical ‘translations’ of these views for eventual use (...) in other populations. We found limited to no support for the notion that personality or demographics predict philosophical views. We did, however, find that some psychological traits were predictive of philosophical views, even after strict correction for multiple comparisons. Findings include: higher interest in numeracy predicted physicalism, naturalism, and consequentialism; lower levels of well-being and higher levels of mental illness predicted hard determinism; using substances such as psychedelics and marijuana predicted non-realist and subjectivist views of morality and aesthetics; having had a transformative or self-transcendent experience predicted theism and idealism. We discuss whether or not these empirical results have philosophical implications, while noting that 68% of our sample of professional philosophers indicated that such findings would indeed have philosophical value. (shrink)

This dialogue explores the question of whether intentionality—the “ofness”, “aboutness”, or “directedness” of mental states—is a relation. We explore three views: the Naive View, on which intentionality is a relation to ordinary, everyday objects, facts, and other such items; the Abstract Contents View, on which intentionality is a relation to mind-independent abstract entities that are our contents; and the Aspect View, on which intentionality is a matter of having intentional states with particular (non-relational) aspects that are our contents. We consider (...) the challenges facing these views, which include empirical challenges in accounting for all the contents our intentional states can represent, metaphysical challenges in making sense of how contents can be entertained or otherwise represented by us and how they can play a psychological role in the mental economy, and challenges in making sense of how intentionality connects us to the world—if at all. Along the way, we consider the question of how consciousness is related to intentionality and how this affects one’s choice of views. (shrink)

The causal closure of the physical poses a familiar causal exclusion problem for the special sciences that stems from the idea that if closure is true, then fundamental physical properties do all the causal work involved in bringing about physical effects. In this paper I aim to show that the strongest causal closure principle that is not ruled out by some simple physics in fact allows for a certain kind of downward causation, which in turn makes room for robust special (...) science autonomy. I focus on the case of vector composition, arguing that it involves irreducibly multilevel causation. To give a complete causal explanation of what goes on in cases that involve the effects of multiple forces, we need to appeal not only to the fundamental properties that generate those forces, but also to geometric properties that determine how multiple vectors compose. However, if all the causal work involved in such cases were due to fundamental physical properties, there would be a one-level explanation available. Hence, I argue, it cannot be the case that fundamental physical properties do all the causal work. The extra causal work, I suggest, comes from the fact that the causal powers bestowed by fundamental physical properties have irreducibly geometric manifestation conditions. I defend the resulting form of downward causation as a solution to the problem of special science autonomy, and discuss two potential accounts of its source, in terms of the debate between kinematic and dynamic theories of the origins of spacetime symmetries. (shrink)

This paper critically examines currently influential transparency accounts of our knowledge of our own beliefs that say that self-ascriptions of belief typically are arrived at by “looking outward” onto the world. For example, one version of the transparency account says that one self-ascribes beliefs via an inference from a premise to the conclusion that one believes that premise. This rule of inference reliably yields accurate self-ascriptions because you cannot infer a conclusion from a premise without believing the premise, and so (...) you cannot infer from a premise that you believe the premise unless you do believe it. I argue that this procedure cannot be a source of justification, however, because one can be justified in inferring from p that q only if p amounts to strong evidence that q is true. This is incompatible with the transparency account because p often is not very strong evidence that you believe that p. For example, unless you are a weather expert, the fact that it will rain is not very strong evidence that you believe it will rain. After showing how this intuitive problem can be made precise, I conclude with a broader lesson about the nature of inferential justification: that beliefs, when justified, must be underwritten by beliefs, when justified, must be underwritten by evidential relationships between the facts or propositions which those beliefs represent. (shrink)

It has often been noticed that conciliatory views of disagreement are "self-undermining" in a certain way: advocates of such views cannot consistently maintain them when other philosophers disagree. This leads to apparent problems of instability and even inconsistency. Does self-undermining, then, show conciliationism untenable? If so, the untenablity would extend not only to almost all views of disagreement, but to a wide range of other views supporting what one might call epistemic modesty: roughly, the idea that getting evidence that one (...) has made an epistemic error in arriving at one’s opinion may require adjusting that opinion. This paper argues that the phenomenon of self-undermining does not disclose any defect in views mandating epistemic modesty. Instead, it highlights an uncomfortable but natural consequence of reflecting on one's own possible epistemic imperfections, a sort of reflection that tends to cause epistemic ideals to conflict. (shrink)

According to orthodoxy, our best physical theories strongly support Eternalism over Presentism. Our goal is to argue against this consensus, by arguing that a certain overlooked aspect of our best physical theories strongly supports Presentism over Eternalism.

Dispositional essentialists argue that physical properties have their causal roles essentially. This is typically taken to mean that physical properties are identical to dispositions. I argue that this is untenable, and that we must instead say that properties bestow dispositions. I explore what it is for a property to have such a role essentially. Dispositional essentialists argue for their view by citing certain epistemological and metaphysical implications, and I appeal to these implications to place desiderata on the concept of essence (...) involved. I argue that the traditional modal theory of essence meets these desiderata, but that the resulting theory wrongly implies that certain dispositions essential to mass are essential to charge, thereby offering a new argument against modal theories of essence. I argue that dispositional essentialism requires a primitive notion of essence, and develop a primitivist theory based on Kit Fine's views. I show that the primitivist theory has all the virtues of the modal alternative, and none of the vices. I develop a novel way of thinking about the relationship between properties, laws and dispositions, and argue that it has distinct advantages over standard dispositional essentialist formulations. (shrink)

This essay explores a conception of responsibility at work in moral and criminal responsibility. Our conception draws on work in the compatibilist tradition that focuses on the choices of agents who are reasons-responsive and work in criminal jurisprudence that understands responsibility in terms of the choices of agents who have capacities for practical reason and whose situation affords them the fair opportunity to avoid wrongdoing. Our conception brings together the dimensions of normative competence and situational control, and we factor normative (...) competence into cognitive and volitional capacities, which we treat as equally important to normative competence and responsibility. Normative competence and situational control can and should be understood as expressing a common concern that blame and punishment presuppose that the agent had a fair opportunity to avoid wrongdoing. This fair opportunity is the umbrella concept in our understanding of responsibility, one that explains it distinctive architecture. (shrink)

Actualists of a certain stripe—dispositionalists—hold that metaphysical modality is grounded in the powers of actual things. Roughly: p is possible iff something has, or some things have, the power to bring it about that p. Extant critiques of dispositionalism focus on its material adequacy, and question whether there are enough powers to account for all the possibilities we intuitively want to countenance. For instance, it seems possible that none of the actual contingent particulars ever existed, but it is impossible to (...) explain this by appealing to the powers of some actual thing or things to bring it about. I argue instead that dispositionalism, in the simple form championed by its proponents, is formally inadequate. Dispositionalists interpret the modal operators as simple existential claims about powers, but if we interpret the operators that way, the resulting system of modal logic is too weak to capture metaphysical modality. I argue that we can modify the standard dispositionalist interpretations of the operators to secure formal adequacy, but at the cost of accepting that not all modality is grounded in powers. This, I shall suggest, is not a bad thing—the resulting theory still has powers at its core and has certain attractive features, in addition to formal adequacy, that the standard theory lacks. (shrink)