MY QUEST, THE HUMAN QUEST, IS TO KNOW REALITY.
HOW TO KNOW REALITY? TRY TO FIND BEDROCK.
DIG DOWN, SEE BOTTOM.
OF WHAT IS REALITY MADE? WHAT ARE THE MOST BASICBUILDING BLOCKS FROM WHICH THE COSMOSIS CONSTRUCTED? ATOMS, PARTICLES, MASS-ENERGY? QUANTUM MECHANICS, FORCES, FIELDS? SPACE AND TIME.
SPACE-TIME? TINY STRINGSWITH MANY DIMENSIONS? A NEW CANDIDATEIS “INFORMATION.
” INFORMATION? ISN'T INFORMATION, WELL, TOO ABSTRACT? A DESCRIPTIVE IDEA, NOT AN ENERGETIC POWER? THE PHYSICISTJOHN ARCHIBALD WHEELER SAID IT BEST: “IT FROM BIT.
” “IT” MEANING ALL STUFFIN THE UNIVERSE.
“BIT” MEANING INFORMATION.
“IT FROM BIT.
” DOES INFORMATIONCREATE THE COSMOS? I'M ROBERT LAWRENCE KUHN, AND CLOSER TO TRUTHIS MY JOURNEY TO FIND OUT.
I GO TO VIEQUES ISLAND, PUERTO RICO.
WHY THIS RUGGED PLACEWITH DENSE FORESTS? WHY HERE TO INVESTIGATEINFORMATION IN THE COSMOS? A UNIQUE GATHERING IS HERE, ORGANIZED BY THE FOUNDATIONALQUESTIONS INSTITUTE–FQXI.
PHYSICISTS AND COSMOLOGISTSWHO DARE TO THINK “OUTSIDE THE BOX”OF CONVENTIONAL WISDOM, “OVER THE HORIZON”OF CURRENT SCIENCE.
THE GATHERING HASAN ORGANIZING PRINCIPLE– THE PHYSICS OF INFORMATION.
AND HERE'S THE DEEP QUESTION: IS INFORMATIONTHE ULTIMATE STUFF FROM WHICH PHYSICAL REALITYIS BUILT? WILL THE IDEAS AND ARGUMENTSOF THESE SCIENTISTS BE AS TANGLED AS THE ROOTSAND BRANCHES OF THESE FORESTS? HOW TO CLEAR AWAYTHE UNDERBRUSH OF OLD IDEAS? I START AS A SKEPTIC.
“INFORMATION AS REALITY”SEEMS SO OUTLANDISH, SO TRENDY– A METAPHOR ON STEROIDS.
I SPEAK WITH AN EXPERTIN QUANTUM INFORMATION WHO DEFENDS THE STRONG IDEA THAT INFORMATION IS INDEEDMOST FUNDAMENTAL– MIT PROFESSOR SETH LLOYD.
ROBERT: SETH, I'M ALL FOR COMPUTERS.
I UNDERSTAND HOW INFORMATIONAND BITS WORK, BUT YOU WANT METO DO SOMETHING MORE.
YOU WANT ME TO BELIEVE THATTHE WHOLE UNIVERSE IS A COMPUTER AND THAT COMPUTATION IS ATTHE FOUNDATIONS OF EVERYTHING.
HOW CAN YOU THINK THAT WAY? SETH LLOYD: [LAUGHING]WELL, ISN'T IT OBVIOUS? SO ONE WAY WE COULD TAKETHAT STATEMENT THAT THE UNIVERSE IS A COMPUTERAS A METAPHOR.
IT'S LIKE, HEY, WE LIVEIN THE AGE OF COMPUTATION, AND WHEN YOU'VE GOT A HAMMER, EVERYTHING LOOKS LIKE A NAIL.
ROBERT: IT USED TO BEA TELEPHONE EXCHANGE.
SETH: IT USED TO BE A TELEPHONEEXCHANGE.
BEFORE THAT IT WAS A GIANT PIECEOF CLOCKWORK, RIGHT.
SO NOW WE HAVE COMPUTERS.
YOU KNOW, NEXT THING THE UNIVERSE IS JUST GONNA BEA BIG SMART PHONE.
BUT WHEN I SAY THAT THE UNIVERSEIS A COMPUTER I'M ACTUALLY MAKING A TECHNICAL, SCIENTIFIC, AND MATHEMATICAL STATEMENT.
WHAT IS A COMPUTER? OKAY, LET'S BE PRECISEABOUT THIS.
THE COMPUTERS THAT WE HAVEON OUR DESKTOPS OR THE COMPUTERS THAT WE HAVEIN OUR SMART PHONES ARE DEVICESTHAT PROCESS INFORMATION IN A SYSTEMATIC FASHION.
THEY'RE PHYSICAL SYSTEMS THATCONTAIN BITS OF INFORMATION.
IN A CONVENTIONALELECTRONIC COMPUTER A BIT IS A LITTLE CAPACITOR, LIKE A BUCKET FOR ELECTRONS.
AND IF THE BUCKET IS UNCHARGED, SO THERE ARE NO ELECTRONSOVER HERE, THEN WE CALL THAT A ZERO.
IF YOU PUT A WHOLE BUNCHOF ELECTRONS OVER HERE SO THE BUCKET IS CHARGEDFULL OF ELECTRONS, THEN WE CALL THAT A ONE.
AND THEN WHEN YOU FLIP BITS, YOU LIKE, YOU KNOW, MOVE THE ELECTRONSBACK AND FORTH, SO YOU DUMP THE ELECTRONS OUT, YOU PUT THEM AROUND, YOU PUT THEM BACK IN, AND THAT IS FLIPPING BITS, AND AT BOTTOM ALL A COMPUTER ISIS A DEVICE THAT FLIPS BITS IN A SYSTEMATIC FASHION.
ROBERT: OKAY.
SETH: AND IN FACT, IN ORDERFOR IT TO DO THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT OUR CELL PHONESAND THAT OUR COMPUTERS AND OUR CAMERAS ACTUALLY DO, THE ACTUAL ARCHITECTUREBY WHICH THEY FLIP THE BITS CAN BE VERY SIMPLE.
AND WHAT IS COMPLICATEDIS THE PROGRAM THAT WE PUT IN TO SAY, OKAY, HAVE SIRITALK TO ME IN THAT SEDUCTIVE YET CHASTEVOICE THAT SHE USES.
RIGHT? OKAY, SO A COMPUTER HASA TECHNICAL DEFINITION.
IT'S A PHYSICAL SYSTEM THATBREAKS UP INFORMATION INTO BITS, AND THAT FLIPS THOSE BITSIN A SYSTEMATIC FASHION.
SO WHAT IS THE UNIVERSE? THE UNIVERSEIS A PHYSICAL SYSTEM.
NOW WE'VE KNOWNFOR MORE THAN A HUNDRED YEARS THAT AT BOTTOM, EVERY ATOM, EVERY ELEMENTARY PARTICLE CARRIES WITH ITBITS OF INFORMATION.
SO AN ELECTRON FOR INSTANCE, IT HAS A SPIN.
THE SPIN IS QUANTIZEDBY THE LAWS OF QUANTUM MECHANICS THAT SAYS IT CAN ONLY TAKETWO DISTINGUISHABLE VALUES: SPINNING UP LIKE THATOR SPINNING DOWN LIKE THAT.
SO IT'S A BIT.
YOU COULD CALL SPINNING UPA ZERO; YOU COULD CALLSPINNING DOWN A ONE; BUT IT'S A BIT WHETHER YOUCALL IT A ZERO OR A ONE OR NOT.
SO AT BOTTOM, THE UNIVERSECONSISTS OF INFORMATION.
EVERY ELEMENTARY PARTICLECARRIES INFORMATION.
JUST LIKE A BIT IN A COMPUTER, EXCEPT SMALLER.
AND WHEN TWO ELECTRONS EACHCARRYING A BIT OF INFORMATION COME AND THEY INTERACTWITH EACH OTHER, THOSE BITS FLIP, AND THEY FLIPIN A SYSTEMATIC WAY.
THEY PERFORM A LOGIC OPERATION.
BUT IF AN ORDINARY COMPUTER IS JUST A SYSTEM THAT CONTAINSBITS OF INFORMATION THAT INTERACT WITH EACH OTHER AND FLIPIN A SYSTEMATIC FASHION, THEN THE UNIVERSE AT BOTTOM IS JUST A BIG GIGANTIC, MAYBE INFINITE SYSTEM THAT CONTAINS BITS OFINFORMATION AT SMALL SCALES.
THOSE BITS ARE INTERACTINGWITH EACH OTHER IN A SYSTEMATIC FASHION.
SO THE SUBSTRATE, THE KINDOF COMPUTATIONAL SUBSTRATE IS THERE.
AND THE ONLY ADDITIONALQUESTION IS, IS IT REALLY TECHNICALLYA DIGITAL COMPUTER? SO CAN THE BIT FLIPPINGTHAT GOES ON IN THE UNIVERSE DO THE SAME KIND OF BIT FLIPPING THAT GOES ONIN OUR SMART PHONES? WELL, I DON'T EVEN HAVE TO ARGUEABOUT THAT BECAUSE OUR SMART PHONESARE PART OF THE UNIVERSE, SO OF COURSE THE KINDOF BIT FLIPPING THAT GOES ON IN OUR SMART PHONESIS ALLOWED AND INDEED ENCOURAGED BY THE BIT FLIPPING THAT GOES ONIN THE UNIVERSE AS A WHOLE.
AND EVEN MORE REMARKABLYWE CAN BUILD QUANTUM COMPUTERS THAT STORE BITS ON INDIVIDUALATOMS AND ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND ACTUALLY DO THIS COMPUTATIONAT THIS MICROSCOPIC SCALE.
SO THE CLAIM THAT THE UNIVERSEIS A GIANT COMPUTER IS NOT JUSTSOME METAPHORICAL CLAIM; IT'S ACTUALLY A TECHNICAL CLAIMABOUT WHAT IS A COMPUTER.
SO WHEN I SAY THAT THE UNIVERSEIS A COMPUTER, I'M SIMPLY STATING A SCIENTIFICAND MATHEMATICAL FACT.
ROBERT: SETH SEEMS SURETHAT INFORMATION IS NOT JUST A WAYOF APPRECIATING OR APPROXIMATING HOW THE UNIVERSE WORKS, BUT THE LITERAL, MOST FUNDAMENTAL WAY IT ACTUALLY WORKS.
THE UNIVERSE IS NOTLIKE A COMPUTER AS EXPLANATORY METAPHOR; THE UNIVERSE IS REALLYA COMPUTER AS SCIENTIFIC FACT.
THE CLAIM IS MONUMENTAL.
IF SETH IS RIGHT, REALITY MUST CHANGE.
BUT MUST IT? PERHAPS SETH IS SO GENERALIZINGTHE CONCEPT OF COMPUTING SUCH THAT THE UNIVERSE BECOMESA COMPUTER ALMOST BY DEFINITION? CALTECH COSMOLOGIST SEAN CARROLL HAS STRONG OPINIONSABOUT WHAT'S BEDROCK; HE'S WRITTEN ON TIMEAND FUNDAMENTAL PARTICLES.
DOES HE HAVE A STRONG OPINIONABOUT INFORMATION? SEAN, SOME PEOPLE WILL NOW TALKABOUT INFORMATION BEING NOT JUST A METAPHOR BUT RATHER SOMETHINGTHAT'S EVEN MORE FUNDAMENTAL, THAT INFORMATION ITSELF IS WHATGIVES RISE TO EVERYTHING ELSE, LIKE QUANTUM MECHANICS.
HOW DO YOU SEE THAT? SEAN CARROLL: I TEND TO THINKOF INFORMATION IN VERY SIMILAR WAYSTHAT I WOULD THINK ABOUT IDEAS LIKE ENTROPY OR ENERGY, WHICH IS TO SAY THEY ARE WAYSOF DESCRIBING REALITY, BUT THEY'RE NOT ABSOLUTELYFUNDAMENTAL, NECESSARY INGREDIENTSOF ANY DESCRIPTION.
WE COULD GET ALONG WITHOUTTALKING ABOUT INFORMATION JUST LIKE WE COULD GET ALONG WITHOUT EVER TALKINGABOUT ENERGY.
I DON'T THINK INFORMATION ISDEEPER THAN THE LAWS OF PHYSICS.
I THINK IT GIVES USA USEFUL HANDLE.
I THINK OF IT AS A DESCRIPTION, BUT I ONLY HESITATEIN SAYING THAT BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKEI'M DOWNPLAYING IT.
I THINK IT'SAN INCREDIBLY USEFUL HANDLE, A REALLY SHARP TOOL THAT HELPSUS UNDERSTAND HOW REALITY WORKS.
BUT IT IS A TOOL.
IT IS NOT AN ABSOLUTELYESSENTIAL PART OF REALITY ITSELF.
ROBERT:WHEN YOU SAY IT'S A TOOL, IS THAT LIKE A MATHEMATICALEQUATION IS A TOOL, WHICH IS EITHER AN ACCURATEOR AN APPROXIMATION OF REALITY? BECAUSE PEOPLE WHO DEFEND THIS WOULD SAY THAT THE INFORMATIONIS CONTAINED IN EVERY OPERATIONTHAT THE UNIVERSE DOES IS A COMPUTATION, AND THEREFORE BECAUSE OF THAT INFORMATION IS MORE FUNDAMENTALTO WHAT THE UNIVERSE DOES.
SEAN: YEAH, I, I HEAR WORDSLIKE THAT ALL THE TIME, ABOUT HOW EVERYTHINGIS A COMPUTATION, WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE UNIVERSEIN ITS EVOLUTION IS INFORMATION BEING PROCESSED.
I THINK THAT GIVES ME AN ANGLETO LOOK AT THE UNIVERSE.
BUT I DON'T THINKIT'S A NECESSARY OR FUNDAMENTAL ANGLE.
I DON'T IMAGINEA QUESTION IN PHYSICS ABOUT HOW THE UNIVERSE CHANGESFROM ONE THING INTO ANOTHER THAT I COULDN'T ANSWER WITHOUTEVER TALKING ABOUT INFORMATION.
ROBERT:SO HOW WOULD YOU ANSWER IT, BY USING DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS? SEAN: THAT'S RIGHT, SO GOINGBACK TO ISAAC NEWTON WHO SAID THAT YOUDESCRIBE THE WORLD BY GIVING THE POSITIONSAND THE VELOCITIES OF ALL THE PARTICLES, AND THEN I HAVE LAWS OF PHYSICS TO TELL YOU HOW THEY EVOLVEDWITH TIME.
IN QUANTUM MECHANICSWE'VE UPDATED THAT WITH WAVE FUNCTIONSAND QUANTUM STATES, BUT IT'S STILLTHE SAME PARADIGM.
AND INFORMATION GIVES US A USEFUL WAYOF CONCEPTUALIZING IT, BUT IT DOESN'T CHANGETHE UNDERLYING LAWS.
ROBERT: AND WHAT WOULD IT TAKEFOR YOU TO CHANGE THAT OPINION? WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE TO, TO KNOW OR THINK ABOUT THE STRUCTUREOF THE UNIVERSE TO SAY, WELL, WAIT A MINUTE, MAYBE INFORMATION IS MORE FUNDAMENTALTHAN I REALIZED? SEAN: WELL, CONSTRUCT A THEORY, A BETTER THEORY THAN THE ONE WE THINK WE HAVEABOUT THE UNIVERSE IN WHICH INFORMATION PLAYSTHIS CENTRAL ROLE.
THE USES TO WHICH INFORMATION, INFORMATION THEORY, INFORMATION PROCESSING ARE PUT, AS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND THEM, ARE WAYS TO UNDERSTANDPHYSICAL PROCESSES THAT ARE DESCRIBEDBY OTHER THINGS, THAT ARE NOT DESCRIBEDFUNDAMENTALLY BY INFORMATION.
SO IF THAT WERE NOT TRUE, IF THERE WERE A BETTER THEORYOF THE UNIVERSE IN WHICH INFORMATION WASTHE FIRST THING YOU NEEDED TO START TALKINGABOUT THAT THEORY, THEN I WOULD TOTALLY CHANGEMY MIND.
ROBERT: TO SEAN, THE JURY IS STILL OUT.
HE ISN'T SURE ABOUTTHE PLACE OF INFORMATION.
HE APPRECIATESTHE USE OF INFORMATION TO FACILITATE UNDERSTANDING, BUT HE DOESN'T SEETHE STUFF OF INFORMATION REPLACINGTHE CLASSICAL PARADIGM– THE LAWS OF PHYSICS DESCRIBING THE POSITIONAND MOMENTUM OF PARTICLES AND HOW THEY EVOLVE OVER TIME.
I'M WITH SEAN.
BUT I FEEL, WELL, A BIT ANTIQUATED, NOT SO HIP.
AM I MISSING SOMETHING? VIEQUES' PRIMITIVE LANDSCAPE HELPS UNDERMINECONVENTIONAL WISDOM.
IS THERE A MORE RADICAL WAYTO IMAGINE INFORMATION? PERHAPS IN SOLVING THE BIGGESTPUZZLE OF MODERN PHYSICS– THE HOLY GRAILOF QUANTUM GRAVITY.
HOW TO INTEGRATE THE UNIVERSALGEOMETRY OF GRAVITY– GENERAL RELATIVITY– WITH THE DISCRETE MICRO-EVENTSOF QUANTUM MECHANICS.
SOME KIND OF BREAKTHROUGHIS REQUIRED.
COULD THAT BREAKTHROUGHBE INFORMATION? I ASK A THEORETICAL PHYSICISTAND STRING THEORIST AT BERKELEY, RAPHAEL BOUSSO.
ROBERT: HOW CAN INFORMATIONHELP US WITH THE PROBLEMOF QUANTUM GRAVITY, OF UNIFYING THE SEEMINGLYDISPARATE THEORIES OF QUANTUM MECHANICSAND GENERAL RELATIVITY? HOW DOES INFORMATION HELP? RAPHAEL BOUSSO: WELL, TO EXPLAINHOW INFORMATION MIGHT HELP WITH QUANTUM GRAVITY, IT'S GOOD TO THINKOF AN ANALOGUE, ANOTHER PROBLEM OF UNIFICATIONTHAT EINSTEIN FACED PUTTING TOGETHERNEWTON'S THEORY OF GRAVITY WITH EINSTEIN'S OWN THEORYOF SPECIAL RELATIVITY, WHICH HAD PUT A FINITESPEED LIMIT ON EVERYTHING, WHICH, WHICH NEWTON'S THEORYDIDN'T OBEY.
AND HE EVENTUALLY FIGURED IT OUT BY UNDERSTANDING THAT GRAVITYIS NOT REALLY A FORCE.
GRAVITY IS GEOMETRY.
IT'S, IT'S BODIES MOVINGAS STRAIGHT AS THEY CAN IN WHAT'S ACTUALLYA BENT SPACE-TIME, BENT LIKE THE SURFACEOF A SPHERE OR OF A SADDLE.
AND TODAY WE'RE TRYING TO GOONE STEP FURTHER– UNIFY GRAVITY, EINSTEIN'S THEORY, WITH QUANTUM MECHANICS.
AND QUANTUM MECHANICSINFORMATION, QUANTUM INFORMATION, IS REALLY THE CURRENCY IN WHICH THE THEORYIS FORMULATED.
AND THERE APPEAR TO BE PHENOMENALLY INTERESTINGCONNECTIONS BETWEEN THE SHAPE OF SPACE-TIME AND THE AMOUNT OF INFORMATIONTHAT CAN BE CONTAINED IN A REGION OF SPACE-TIME.
I MYSELF CONTRIBUTEDTO UNDERSTANDING WHAT THOSE RELATIONS ARE, AND THEY'RE EXTREMELY SURPRISINGAND VERY BEAUTIFUL, AND IT SEEMS THAT THEYSHOULD HAVE A DEEPER ORIGIN, THAT IF WE DISCOVER THIS ORIGIN, IF WE, IF WE UNDERSTAND WHAT UNDERLIESTHIS STRANGE RELATION, WE MIGHT UNDERSTANDHOW TO PUT TOGETHER GENERAL RELATIVITYAND QUANTUM MECHANICS.
ROBERT: WHAT WASYOUR OWN CONTRIBUTION? RAPHAEL: WHAT I DISCOVERED, FOLLOWING THE WORK OF OTHERS, OF COURSE, IS THAT IF YOU CRAMTOO MUCH INFORMATION INTO A REGION OF SPACE, GRAVITY WILL MAKE IT COLLAPSETO A BLACK HOLE, AND EVENTUALLY IF YOU CRAM MORE, THE BLACK HOLE WOULD GET BIGGER THAN THE SURFACE AREAYOU SPECIFIED, AND YOU JUST CAN'T DO THAT.
AND SO THAT PROVIDESAN ABSOLUTE LIMIT ON HOW MUCH INFORMATIONYOU CAN HAVE, COMPLETELY INDEPENDENTLYOF WHAT YOU THINK THE SMALLEST CONSTITUENTS ARE.
IT'S A VERY UNIVERSAL THINGTHAT'S GOVERNED ONLY BY GRAVITY, AND SO THAT ESTABLISHESA CONNECTION BETWEEN THESE TWO THINGS, QUANTUM INFORMATION AND GRAVITY, THAT IF WE COULD UNRAVELITS ORIGIN, I THINK IT WOULD TELL US A LOT ABOUT HOW TO UNIFYTHOSE TWO THINGS.
ROBERT:HOW ARE YOU DIFFERENTIATINGBETWEEN THE PARTICLES OR THE MASS-ENERGYAND THE INFORMATION? HOW DO THE TWO ARTICULATE? RAPHAEL: WELL, THE MASSAND ENERGY ARE JUST FORMS, IN THIS VIEWPOINT, THAT THE INFORMATION TAKES.
ROBERT: IN THIS ANALYSISINFORMATION IS, IS VERY FUNDAMENTAL.
IT'S NOT JUST A, A WAY, IT'S NOT A MEASUREMENT THING.
IT'S SOMETHING THAT, THAT IS REALLY THE, THE PRIMARY CONSTITUENTOF WHAT YOU'RE WORKING WITH, SO IT DOES SOUNDLIKE IT'S MORE FUNDAMENTAL THAN THE COMMON UNDERSTANDINGOF INFORMATION.
RAPHAEL: IT'S CLEARTHAT IN THIS RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INFORMATION AND GEOMETRY IT'S INFORMATION THAT HASTHE SIMPLE RELATIONSHIP.
IF I TRY TO RE-EXPRESS THAT IN TERMS OF THE MASSESAND CHARGES AND SO ON OF PARTICLES, IT BECOMES VERY CONVOLUTED, AND IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLETO SEE THE RELATION.
SO AT THE VERY LEAST IT TELLS USTHAT THIS PARTICULAR RELATION GIVES A PREFERRED STATUSTO INFORMATION.
IT'S OF COURSE POSSIBLE THATBOTH THE QUANTUM INFORMATION AND THE OTHER PROPERTIESOF PHYSICAL NATURE HAVE SOME COMMON ORIGIN, AND SO THAT'S WHY I'M RELUCTANTTO SIMPLY DECLARE THAT INFORMATIONIS AUTOMATICALLY THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL THINGIN THE WORLD.
BUT YES, YOU'RE RIGHT, THAT WOULD BETHE FIRST GUESS YOU'D MAKE LOOKING AT THIS RELATION.
ROBERT: RAPHAEL HELPED DISCOVERTHE DEEP RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INFORMATION AND SPACE AND HOW INFORMATION IS STOREDIN MATTER AND ENERGY.
INFORMATION TO HIM IS NOTSO MUCH “MODELING THE SYSTEM, ” IT IS THE SYSTEM.
I'M NO EXPERT, BUT IT SURESOUNDS AS IF RAPHAEL HAS SHOWN THAT REALITYWON'T WORK UNLESS INFORMATIONIS IN SOME SENSE REAL.
HE FOCUSES ON STRINGS–THE SMALLEST THINGS.
WHAT ABOUT THE BIGGEST THINGS–THE STRUCTURE OF THE UNIVERSE? I ASK ONE OF THE FOUNDERSOF CONTEMPORARY COSMOLOGY, THE MIT PROFESSOR WHO FORMULATEDCOSMIC INFLATION– THE PREVAILING THEORY FOR HOWTHE UNIVERSE BEGAN– ALAN GUTH.
ALAN, ONE OF THE QUESTIONSTHAT IS BEING ADDRESSED HERE IS NOT JUST WHAT INFORMATIONIS IN PHYSICS BUT THE CLAIM BY A FEWTHAT INFORMATION REALLY IS THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL THINGOF EXISTENCE.
HOW DO YOU REACT TO THAT? ALAN GUTH: I HAVE TO ADMIT IFIND THOSE ISSUES HARD TO PARSE.
BUT MY OWN UNDERSTANDINGOF PHYSICS IS THAT, TO ME, MATTER-ENERGYAND INFORMATION ARE ALMOST THE SAME THING.
THAT IS, IN PHYSICS WE DESCRIBEMATTER AND ENERGY BY INTRODUCING FIELDSAND EQUATIONS THAT GOVERN THE EVOLUTIONOF THOSE FIELDS AND SO ON.
BUT ULTIMATELY THOSE FIELDS AREREALLY JUST MATHEMATICAL DEVICES THAT WE USE TO DESCRIBE REALITY.
AND THE VALUES OF THOSE FIELDSARE INFORMATION, SO I CAN EASILY BELIEVE THATTHERE ARE OTHER FORMULATIONS OF THE LAWS OF PHYSICS THAT MIGHT LOOKCOMPLETELY DIFFERENT BUT WOULD HAVETHE SAME INFORMATION CONTENT, AND THEY WOULD BE EQUIVALENT.
SO I WOULD SAY THAT ULTIMATELYPHYSICS IS ABOUT NUMBERS, AND NUMBERS ARE INFORMATION, AND EVERYTHING THAT WE USETO DESCRIBE THE WORLD IN TERMS OF ABSTRACTIONS, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANY SENSEOF WHAT REALLY EXISTS.
MAYBE I CAN BE MORE CONCRETEBY SAYING THAT I THINK THAT IF A COMPUTERWERE SIMULATING THE WORLD AND CARRYING OUT THE EVOLUTION THAT WE THINK THE WORLDREALLY EVOLVES ACCORDING TO, THAT IS THE TRUE LAWSOF PHYSICS, NOT OUR APPROXIMATIONTO THE LAWS OF PHYSICS, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'SA PLAUSIBLE DESCRIPTION OF OUR ACTUAL UNIVERSE, BUT I WOULD THINKTHAT THAT WOULD BE COMPLETELY EQUIVALENTTO OUR UNIVERSE, THAT WE COULD BE LIVINGIN SUCH A UNIVERSE AND WOULD NOT KNOWTHE DIFFERENCE.
ROBERT:BUT THE CLAIM OF INFORMATION GOES DEEPER THAN WHATYOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH.
IT'S NOT JUST THAT INFORMATION IS ANOTHER WAY TO DESCRIBETHE LAWS OF PHYSICS OR EMBEDS NUMERICAL QUANTITIES, BUT IT SAYS THAT THE, THEFUNDAMENTAL UNIT OF INFORMATION, THE BIT, IS THE MOST UNDERLYING FACTOR.
AND THAT'S WHATTHE LAWS OF PHYSICS ARE AS OPPOSED TO THAT'SWHAT THE LAWS OF PHYSICS CAN BE DESCRIBED AS.
ALAN: YES.
ROBERT: YOU CAN HAVEAN EQUIVALENT EQUATION.
THAT'S NOT THE CLAIM.
THE CLAIM IS THAT IT'S, IT'S THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL AND YOU'RE DEALINGWITH THE DERIVATIVE.
ALAN: YEAH, YEAH.
UM.
.
.
OKAY, I THINK ALL I CAN SAY IS I DON'T SEE A JUSTIFICATIONFOR THAT CLAIM, ALTHOUGH MAYBE I COULD BECONVINCED IN THE FUTURE.
UNLESS THOSE BITSARE DOING SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM THE LAWS OF PHYSICS, I DON'T REALLY SEETHAT THERE'S A QUESTION HERE.
IF TWO THINGS ARE EQUIVALENT, I DON'T THINK THERE'SANY VALID WAY TO TALK ABOUT WHICH IS MORE FUNDAMENTAL, AND I SEE THE TWO AS EQUIVALENT.
ROBERT: ALAN APPRECIATESTHE DEEP IMPORTANCE OF INFORMATION, THOUGH HE ISNO INFORMATION EVANGELIST.
I LIKE HIS BALANCED APPROACH– DESCRIBING MATTER-ENERGYAND INFORMATION AS ALMOST THE SAME THING.
THAT'S WHY ALAN IS JUSTIFIEDIN POSING THE POSSIBILITY THAT OUR UNIVERSEIS A SIMULATION, RUNNING ON SOME COSMIC COMPUTER.
HERE I'M CONFLICTED.
ON THE ONE HAND, THE UNIVERSE AS SIMULATION IS A POSSIBILITYTHAT CANNOT BE REJECTED IF THE UNIVERSE IS A COMPUTERAND INFORMATION IS PRIMARY.
ON THE OTHER HAND, THE UNIVERSE AS SIMULATION WOULD CONFIRM REDUCTIONISM, THE IDEA THAT EVERYTHING, INCLUDING CONSCIOUSNESS, CAN BE REDUCED TO BASIC PHYSICSAND EVEN TO DIGITAL EVENTS.
SO CAN CONSCIOUSNESS HELPCORROBORATE THE CLAIM THAT INFORMATION IS FUNDAMENTAL? IT'S SAID THAT EVEN IF PHYSICSFINDS IT FINAL THEORY, THE MYSTERY OF CONSCIOUSNESSSHALL REMAIN.
HOW DO WE HAVE INNER EXPERIENCE? NOW, IN A RADICALLY NEW THEORY, INFORMATION IS RECRUITEDTO PLAY THE CRUCIAL ROLE.
I QUESTIONONE OF THE SUPPORTERS– THE CHIEF SCIENTIFIC OFFICER OF THE ALLEN INSTITUTEFOR BRAIN SCIENCE, NEUROSCIENTIST CHRISTOF KOCH.
ROBERT: CHRISTOF, YOU'VE DEALT WITH INFORMATION, PARTICULARLY IN TRYINGTO EXPLAIN CONSCIOUSNESS, BUT DO YOU SEE INFORMATION AS SOMETHING THAT IS FUNDAMENTALTO THE STRUCTURE OF EVERYTHING? CHRISTOF KOCH: INFORMATIONIS PART OF THE STRUCTURE OF THE UNIVERSE.
I'M NOT SAYING INFORMATION CAME BEFORE SPACE-TIME, ENERGY, AND MASS, BUT IN ORDER TO EXPLAINCONSCIOUSNESS, WHICH IS PART AND PARCELOF THE UNIVERSE, WE NEED, WE NEED INFORMATION THEORY.
AND ULTIMATELYMY ONLY EXPERIENCE, THIS IS THE HEART OF THE MOST FAMOUS DEDUCTIONIN WESTERN THOUGHT, COGITO ERGO SUM– THE ONLY WAY I EXPERIENCETHE UNIVERSE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT GRAVITYAND GALAXIES, ALL OF THAT I HAVE TO INFER.
THE ONE THING I'M UTTERLYCERTAIN OF IS I'M CONSCIOUS.
SAME THING AS YOU ARE CONSCIOUSOF YOUR OWN EXISTENCE.
AND THAT NEEDS TO BE EXPLAINED BY SOME SORT OFINTRINSIC INFORMATION, INTRINSIC INFORMATION PRINCIPLESSUCH AS INTEGRATED INFORMATION.
SO THAT SAYS THAT IN SOME SENSEIT IS FUNDAMENTAL.
MY ONLY REALITYIS MY LIVED REALITY.
IT'S MY ONLY REALITYI HAVE DIRECTLY ACCESS TO.
IT IS SORT OF THE LIGHTINSIDE MY HEAD.
IT IS THE SOUND INSIDE MY SKULL.
THAT IS ULTIMATELY– IT'S ALL CREATEDBY INTEGRATED INFORMATION THAT'S CREATEDBY THIS COMPLEX BRAIN THAT'S EVOLVED OVER, YOU KNOW, SEVERAL BILLION YEARSOF EVOLUTION.
SO YOU NEED AN EXTERNAL WORLD THAT'S GIVEN BY PHYSICS AND MATHAND SPACE AND TIME, BUT THEN YOU ALSO NEEDSORT OF INFORMATION THAT GIVES RISE TO EXPERIENCE, AND EXPERIENCE ONCE AGAIN ISTHE ONLY WAY I OR ANYBODY ELSE KNOWS ABOUT THE WORLD.
ROBERT: OKAY.
BUT DOES THAT MEAN INFORMATION IS A WAY OF DESCRIBINGWHAT YOU SEE, OR IS INFORMATION.
.
.
WHAT SITS BELOWEVERYTHING THAT YOU SEE AND GIVES RISE TO EVERYTHING? THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE.
CHRISTOF: IT IS NOT JUST USEDTO DESCRIBE REALITY; I THINK IT IS AN.
.
.
IT IS AN IRREDUCIBLE ASPECT.
IT'S AN IMMINENT–IT'S AN INTRINSIC ASPECT.
SO I ORDER TO FULLY DESCRIBETHE UNIVERSE, I POSIT YOU NEEDSPACE, TIME, ENERGY, MASS, AND YOU NEEDTHAT ORGANIZED MATTER GIVES RISE OR IS ASSOCIATEDWITH INTEGRATED INFORMATION.
THAT IS WHAT WE CALL EXPERIENCE.
IT'S A PART AND PARCELOF THE WORLD.
IT DOESN'T EMERGE.
IT IS FUNDAMENTALLY THERE.
IT'S JUST AS FUNDAMENTALAS CHARGE.
IT'S A FUNDAMENTAL PROPERTYOF CERTAIN ELEMENTARY PARTICLES, LIKE AN ELECTRON.
ULTIMATELYINTEGRATED INFORMATION IS A RELATIONSHIP AMONG ELEMENTSWITHIN A SYSTEM.
IT'S A VIEW OF THE SYSTEMVIEWED FROM WITHIN.
SO ULTIMATELY IT'SA MATHEMATICAL RELATIONSHIP.
IT'S MATHEMATICS IN SOME SENSE, SO YOU CAN SORT OF TAKEA PLATONIC VIEW ON THIS AND SAY ULTIMATELYIT'S THE MATHEMATICAL REALITY THAT GIVES RISE TO EXPERIENCE.
I'M SAYING THAT ULTIMATELYMY REALITY, MY LIVED REALITY– NOT THE ONE I INFER, WHICH IS INVOLVED IN PHYSICS– THE ONE I LIVE RIGHT NOW; I HAVE AN EXPERIENCE.
I SEE YOU.
YOU JUST ASKED ME A QUESTION.
I HEAR YOUR VOICEINSIDE MY HEAD.
I HAVE THIS MOVIE INSIDE MY HEADTHAT SHOWS YOU.
THAT EXPERIENCEIS INTEGRATED INFORMATION.
IT'S JUST THE SAME.
IT'S AN IDENTITY RELATIONSHIP.
INTEGRATED INFORMATIONIS MY EXPERIENCE, MY EXPERIENCEIS INTEGRATED INFORMATION.
SO THAT'S FUNDAMENTALTO CONSCIOUS EXPERIENCE, WHICH IS A FUNDAMENTAL ASPECTOF REALITY, SO IN THAT SENSEIT DOESN'T PREDATE PHYSICS BUT IT'S PART OF PHYSICS.
NOW YOU CAN ASKWHY THAT PARTICULAR THEORY.
THAT'S VERY SIMILAR TO ASKINGWHY QUANTUM MECHANICS.
CAN YOU IMAGINE A UNIVERSEWHERE QUANTUM MECHANICS– THE LAWS OF QUANTUM MECHANICS–DO NOT HOLD? YES, YOU CAN IMAGINE, BUT FOR WHATEVER REASONSWE DON'T KNOW RIGHT NOW, WE LIVE IN A UNIVERSEWHERE QUANTUM MECHANICS HOLD.
SAME THING, WE LIVE IN A UNIVERSE WHERE INTEGRATED INFORMATIONGIVES RISE TO, TO CONSCIOUSNESS.
ROBERT: WHAT'S FUNDAMENTAL? WHAT'S BEDROCKIN THE GRAND CHAIN OF EXISTENCE? AT FIRST GLANCE, INFORMATION WOULD SEEM MORE A METAPHOROR A MODEL THAN THE FUNDAMENTALBUILDING BLOCK OF REALITY.
TWO FACTORS MAKE ME THINK TWICE.
FIRST, THE SURPRISINGRELATIONSHIP BETWEEN QUANTUM INFORMATIONAND GRAVITY.
SECOND, INTEGRATED INFORMATION AS A POSSIBLE MECHANISMFOR CONSCIOUSNESS.
SO IF THE UNIVERSE WEREA COMPUTER, A QUANTUM COMPUTER, WHAT WOULD BEITS COMPUTING POWER? I RETURN TO SETH LLOYD.
SETH: BECAUSE THE UNIVERSEIS QUANTUM MECHANICAL.
SO IT INHERITS EVERYTHINGTHAT A QUANTUM COMPUTER CAN DO.
SO THE UNIVERSEBY ITS VERY NATURE INHERITS THIS ABILITY TO DO MANY, MANYDIFFERENT THINGS.
SO THERE ARE ABOUTTWO TO THE 300 ELEMENTARY PARTICLESIN THE UNIVERSE.
THAT MEANS IF EACH PARTICLEHAD A BAR CODE, YOU WOULD HAVE A 300-BIT BARCODE TO LABEL EACH PARTICLEIN THE UNIVERSE.
SO LET'S TAKE A VERY TINY CHUNKOF THE UNIVERSE, LIKE 300 ELECTRONS.
IT'S MUCH, MUCH, MUCH, MUCH SMALLER THAN THE UNIVERSE.
THIS CHUNK OF 300 ELECTRONS COULD DO 2 TO THE 300DIFFERENT THINGS.
SO EVEN A TINY FRACTIONOF THE UNIVERSE CAN DO MORE THINGS THAN THEREARE ELEMENTARY PARTICLES IN THE UNIVERSE AS A WHOLE.
ROBERT: NOW IF, IN FACT, OUR UNIVERSE ISFUNDAMENTALLY A COMPUTER, THEN IT SHOULD BEENTIRELY FEASIBLE, ON FUTURE SUPER-COMPUTERS, TO SIMULATE WHOLE WORLDS.
I'D STILL BET AGAINSTWHOLE WORLD SIMULATIONS.
I'D SUSPECT FLAWSIN THE ASSUMPTIONS.
BUT WHOLE WORLD SIMULATIONS ARETHE CONSEQUENCE OF THE ARGUMENT, NOT THE CORE.
THE CORE IS WHETHER INFORMATIONCONSTRUCTS THE COSMOS.
.
.
WHETHER INFORMATIONIS CLOSER TO TRUTH.
.
