Relativistic Implications for Physical Copies of Conscious States (2005.04101v2)

Abstract: The possibility of algorithmic consciousness depends on the assumption that conscious states can be copied or repeated by sufficiently duplicating their underlying physical states, leading to a variety of paradoxes, including the problems of duplication, teleportation, simulation, self-location, the Boltzmann brain, and Wigner's Friend. In an effort to further elucidate the physical nature of consciousness, I challenge these assumptions by analyzing the implications of special relativity on evolutions of identical copies of a mental state, particularly the divergence of these evolutions due to quantum fluctuations. By assuming the supervenience of a conscious state on some sufficient underlying physical state, I show that the existence of two or more instances, whether spacelike or timelike, of the same conscious state leads to a logical contradiction, ultimately refuting the assumption that a conscious state can be physically reset to an earlier state or duplicated by any physical means. Several explanatory hypotheses and implications are addressed, particularly the relationships between consciousness, locality, physical irreversibility, and quantum no-cloning.

• The paper presents a theoretical analysis showing that duplicating conscious states leads to paradoxes under special relativity and quantum no-cloning principles.
• The paper utilizes thought experiments such as teleportation and Wigner's Friend to illustrate contradictions in the repeatability of conscious states.
• The paper argues that consciousness is inherently non-algorithmic, imposing practical limits on Strong AI and computational models of mental states.

Analyzing the Constraints of Copyable Conscious States: Implications of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics

The paper "Relativistic Implications for Physical Copies of Conscious States" by Andrew Knight explores the theoretical and physical limitations related to the copyability and repeatability of conscious states. It tackles the assumption that such states can be duplicated through the replication of their physical substrates, engaging with a variety of paradoxical scenarios and philosophical quandaries associated with conscious duplication. By examining the constraints imposed by special relativity and quantum fluctuations, the paper proposes that copying conscious states leads to contradictions, challenging foundational assumptions in consciousness studies.

The work builds on two main assumptions: the supervenience of conscious states on physical states, and their potential copiability. It examines these in light of special relativity, arguing that the existence of multiple identical conscious states—whether they are spacelike or timelike separated—leads to inherently contradictory situations. This is especially pertinent in the context of scenarios such as teleportation, mental uploading, and the famously troubling Boltzmann brains and Wigner's Friend thought experiments.

An interesting focus of the paper is on how these assumptions interact with notions of identity and locality, invoking philosophical stances such as those of Parfit on personal identity. The intricate interplay of identity preservation and potential duplication is scrutinized, with relativity playing a pivotal role in the arguments presented. This discussion aligns with the dramatic impact of nonlocality and causality in the quantum field, in turn influencing perceptions of consciousness as inherently non-duplicable and non-repetitive.

Among the significant theoretical claims, Knight postulates that consciousness cannot be algorithmic, pinpointing the implications for AI and the limits of the computational models of the mind. This assertion impacts the prospects of Strong AI and computational renditions of consciousness, suggesting that such models cannot capture the unique qualities and constraints of conscious experience. The notion relates to quantum no-cloning theory, which posits intrinsic limitations on duplicating quantum states and consequently supports the idea of consciousness as irreproducibly tied to its original generation by the brain or an equivalent biological structure.

Further implications of this research touch on experimental boundaries in physics, notably in scenarios involving reversible and irreversible states in machining quantum systems for interference experiments. The narrative infers that if consciousness is entwined with processes of fundamental irreversibility, as suggested, this may also bear cosmological ramifications, particularly with respect to discussions on the curvature of the universe and observer-based models in quantum mechanics.

In exploring potential future directions, the paper could spur comprehensive examination into the nexus of consciousness, quantum mechanics, and non-classical logic. This presents an opportunity for cross-disciplinary inquiries merging quantum information theory, philosophy of mind, and computational neuroscience in efforts to decipher the enigma of consciousness in physical reality.

In summary, Knight's paper invites a reconsideration of some entrenched assumptions about consciousness through the lens of physics, providing new directions for theoretical exploration and potentially reshaping strategies in artificial intelligence and cognitive science. The complexity and nuance of the paper underscore the profound challenges present within the dialogues intersecting consciousness studies and fundamental physics.