There really might be an afterlife

[rocketdodger]

Premise 1) -- consciousness is a type of information processing.

If you disagree with premise 1, then goodbye, this thread is not for you.

Let E(t) be the pattern of information that constitutes consciousness C(t) at time t. Let R be the rules, or the language, used to describe E(t).

Premise 2) -- if another pattern of information P is isomorphic to E(t) under R, then C(t) will be instantiated by P.

Premise 3) -- for every t, there may be some n, at any given time, such that P is isomorphic to E(t) under R. Extended to infinity, we can assume that there will be some such n.

Conclusion:

It is plausible that "we" are merely a series of information patterns, instantiated randomly throughout some other universe, inhabiting a solipsistic world. In fact, it is plausible that "we" are a single pattern that happens to include all of our memories up to the instant prior, and that only a single instance of a similar pattern existed, and there is no existence beyond the current instant.

At any rate, it is therefore also plausible that there is a pattern P(n == some number) that is isomorphic to E(t == time of death of C) and a series of patterns P(n == some other numbers) that are isomorphic to E(t == some time during an afterlife of C) under R.

In other words, if "we" are merely these random patterns, then there is no good reason why there are not such random patterns corresponding to "we" in some afterlife.

A corollary is that there is no good reason there are not such random patterns corresponding to "we" in a whacky world where up suddenly becomes down, or whatever, so in fact there are such patterns and other branches of "we" are experiencing them. This is very close to multiverse theories, I suppose.

EDIT -- this theory does not imply soplisism, after all, because there is no reason each pattern P couldn't be isomorphic to some combination of E1(t), E2(t), .... Em(t), where Em(t) corresponds to the m'th consciousness of some other individual from our point of view.

 

[Gate2501]

I always like to say:

" I can't not exist, as far as I'm concerned. "

 

[HansMustermann]

The problem is that it may be less random than you assume, and/or we may not have infinite time.

Let's start with the former problem. Your mental processes aren't random, but determined by your past experiences and memories. Every piece of information that goes through that brain strengthens some connections and weakens other in that giant self-configuring FPG you have upstairs. The very wiring, i.e., the underlying machine, changes over time.

Plus, that's really what makes you "you": that sum of those memories and experiences.

So for someone to be "you" at any given time in their existence, they'd really have to have the same memories and all. They'd have to be born of a mother of the same name, speaking the same language, be bit by a dog at the same age, get the same childhood diseases, see the same movies, fall in love with an identical girl in an identical high school, etc.

Even given infinite time, the conditions change. What's the probability of, say, Sir John Doe, a knight in William The Conqueror's army to be "reborn" in modern day England that way? Well, exactly zero. There is no way for anyone to live the the same experiences all over again, because the world has changed.

A an even less comforting though there is that it's very unlikely to be a continuation. It's more likely to be a repetition. That C(t) as you're dying of old age at, say, 98 years old, will not happen as an identical P in a newborn so you can continue from where you left, but in some other geezer dying of old age at 98 years old.

Second, do we really have infinite time? The universe will die an entropy death sooner or later, and in all fairness it's likely that the human race will die or change into something else long before that.

Even before that, the universe will change at various points enough to make such an isomorphism impossible.

E.g., in 100 billion years, everything outside our galaxy will fall outside the observable universe, due to accelerating expansion. So someone living in that time, even if somehow humanity reset to tribal and reevolved to be an equivalent of late 20'th century, that guy will nevertheless have another perspective of the universe.

E.g., in 5 billion years or so, the Sun will die, so if humanity manages to migrate before that, it will nevertheless have a different perspective. It will not teach their kids that they evolved on whatever planet they are, nor that God created that one planet in 6 days. It will not have 24 hour days or a 365 day year or a 28 day moon cycle. Etc.

So you really have a very finite time for that to realistically happen. And given the tremendous amount of information and connections in a brain, the probability of all that happening again within that finite time window may not be anywhere near 1, to say the least.

 

[maddog]

Well, if you're using consciousness...

I know someone in her late 80's who has extremely limited consciousness. She kinda gets some things, but... can't remember much of anything, and +/- half of what she does remember is wrong. Can't manage a complex thought anymore, and simple thoughts are... rare and challenging. Mostly she does what her caregivers tell her and/or do to her, for her.

But, she's still alive. Is this an afterlife? A kind of post-consciousness life?

 

[Third Eye Open]

I can only see this working if there are infinite universes and infinite time. The odds of all the atoms arranging themselves in just the right way to make you're brain containing your memories up till exactly the point of your death are vanishingly small. But with infinite time and space, it has to happen eventually. An infinite number of times, actually.

 

[rocketdodger]

The problem is that it may be less random than you assume, and/or we may not have infinite time.

Let's start with the former problem. Your mental processes aren't random, but determined by your past experiences and memories. Every piece of information that goes through that brain strengthens some connections and weakens other in that giant self-configuring FPG you have upstairs. The very wiring, i.e., the underlying machine, changes over time.

Plus, that's really what makes you "you": that sum of those memories and experiences.

So for someone to be "you" at any given time in their existence, they'd really have to have the same memories and all. They'd have to be born of a mother of the same name, speaking the same language, be bit by a dog at the same age, get the same childhood diseases, see the same movies, fall in love with an identical girl in an identical high school, etc.

Even given infinite time, the conditions change. What's the probability of, say, Sir John Doe, a knight in William The Conqueror's army to be "reborn" in modern day England that way? Well, exactly zero. There is no way for anyone to live the the same experiences all over again, because the world has changed.

A an even less comforting though there is that it's very unlikely to be a continuation. It's more likely to be a repetition. That C(t) as you're dying of old age at, say, 98 years old, will not happen as an identical P in a newborn so you can continue from where you left, but in some other geezer dying of old age at 98 years old.

Second, do we really have infinite time? The universe will die an entropy death sooner or later, and in all fairness it's likely that the human race will die or change into something else long before that.

Even before that, the universe will change at various points enough to make such an isomorphism impossible.

E.g., in 100 billion years, everything outside our galaxy will fall outside the observable universe, due to accelerating expansion. So someone living in that time, even if somehow humanity reset to tribal and reevolved to be an equivalent of late 20'th century, that guy will nevertheless have another perspective of the universe.

E.g., in 5 billion years or so, the Sun will die, so if humanity manages to migrate before that, it will nevertheless have a different perspective. It will not teach their kids that they evolved on whatever planet they are, nor that God created that one planet in 6 days. It will not have 24 hour days or a 365 day year or a 28 day moon cycle. Etc.

So you really have a very finite time for that to realistically happen. And given the tremendous amount of information and connections in a brain, the probability of all that happening again within that finite time window may not be anywhere near 1, to say the least.

I am not talking about brains here. That is the whole point -- the brain isn't necessary at all, it could happen in any sufficiently complex collection of particles.

In other words "you" might just be a random arrangement of particles in a mountain somewhere that -- just by chance -- happens to be isomorphic to the pattern of information that constitutes "your" consciousness.

 

[HansMustermann]

A collection of particles which incidentally works like a brain, and incidentally has exactly the memory and configuration of yours?

I'm sorry, but that's such an infinitesimal probability that even giving it a generous 1000 billion years before the universe is cold and dead and can no longer supply it with energy to function, it just won't happen.

Yes, given infinite time and/or infinite universes, anything will happen. But we don't have infinite time, and for all we know there is just one universe. That's where it all breaks down.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Premise 1) -- consciousness is a type of information processing.

If you disagree with premise 1, then goodbye, this thread is not for you.

Let E(t) be the pattern of information that constitutes consciousness C(t) at time t. Let R be the rules, or the language, used to describe E(t).

Premise 2) -- if another pattern of information P is isomorphic to E(t) under R, then C(t) will be instantiated by P.

Premise 3) -- for every t, there may be some n, at any given time, such that P is isomorphic to E(t) under R. Extended to infinity, we can assume that there will be some such n.

Conclusion:

It is plausible that "we" are merely a series of information patterns, instantiated randomly throughout some other universe, inhabiting a solipsistic world. In fact, it is plausible that "we" are a single pattern that happens to include all of our memories up to the instant prior, and that only a single instance of a similar pattern existed, and there is no existence beyond the current instant.

At any rate, it is therefore also plausible that there is a pattern P(n == some number) that is isomorphic to E(t == time of death of C) and a series of patterns P(n == some other numbers) that are isomorphic to E(t == some time during an afterlife of C) under R.

In other words, if "we" are merely these random patterns, then there is no good reason why there are not such random patterns corresponding to "we" in some afterlife.

A corollary is that there is no good reason there are not such random patterns corresponding to "we" in a whacky world where up suddenly becomes down, or whatever, so in fact there are such patterns and other branches of "we" are experiencing them. This is very close to multiverse theories, I suppose.

EDIT -- this theory does not imply soplisism, after all, because there is no reason each pattern P couldn't be isomorphic to some combination of E1(t), E2(t), .... Em(t), where Em(t) corresponds to the m'th consciousness of some other individual from our point of view.

Dude...

 

[HansMustermann]

Ok, so let's do some maths, since just bare postulates are unbecoming of me:

According to Wikipedia and a quick googling to double-check: A human brain has 100 billion neurons. On the average each has 7000 inputs. (The ones in the cortex more, of course, the others less.) It's estimated that a 3 year old has 10^15 such synapses, though the number decreases as you grow up.

Now the "strength" or sensitivity of a synapse is pretty much how your brain learns, and that's really an analogue number. But let's pretend it's an on-off affair, i.e., binary. I.e., we'll only model here which synapses broke off so far.

We'll also ignore that new connections grow in that self-reconfiguring FPGA.

(We'll _massively_ underestimate the information needed to reproduce that C(t) this way, but I kinda like the idea of an afterlife all of a sudden.)

So the information needed for even just that carricature of a model is basically 2 to the power 1,000,000,000,000,000. Read that carefully. It's not just a million billions, it's two to the power a million billions! Well, 2^10 is approximately 10^3, so that's approximately 10^300,000,000,000,000. Yes, you write a one and then 300,000,000,000,000 zeroes behind it.

Even assuming that some particles assembled themselves in the equivalence of a brain (already improbable), it would be one chance in 2^1,000,000,000,000,000 that it's configured like yours.

And again: that's just which synapses are completely off. If we go into more details it only gets more ludicrious.

So on the whole I wouldn't set my hopes too high there of it happening by chance. Yes, in infinite time it would, but when I put my pragmatic engineer cap on, I wouldn't bet on it happening.

 

[dlorde]

Well of course there's no good evidence that we're not already in 'the afterlife' - whatever that really means...

The problem with using infinite time and/or space and/or universes is that (much like the 'Many Worlds' interpretation of QM), anything that can happen will happen somewhere, somewhen, which doesn't really help.

 

[godless dave]

While information processing is undoubtedly a component of consciousness, this processing happens in living neurons. I don't think it's likely that consciousness can be divorced from the biological tissue that's doing the processing.

 

[Apathia]

"The eternal hourglass of existence is turned upside down again and again, and you with it, speck of dust!"

Nietzsche

 

[X]

I think you are forgetting that the thing those patterns are in rots after death.

If I were to take my computer hard drive, and cut it into tiny pieces, and then melt it down and recycle the metal, does the information in it live on?

 

[edge]

I think you are forgetting that the thing those patterns are in rots after death.

If I were to take my computer hard drive, and cut it into tiny pieces, and then melt it down and recycle the metal, does the information in it live on?

If the information is truth sure.
Just not in the same form.

 

[Doc Daneeka]

It is plausible that "we" are merely a series of information patterns, instantiated randomly throughout some other universe, inhabiting a solipsistic world. In fact, it is plausible that "we" are a single pattern that happens to include all of our memories up to the instant prior, and that only a single instance of a similar pattern existed, and there is no existence beyond the current instant.

Plausible, yes. A great many things are plausible. So what?

 

[rocketdodger]

I think you are forgetting that the thing those patterns are in rots after death.

If I were to take my computer hard drive, and cut it into tiny pieces, and then melt it down and recycle the metal, does the information in it live on?

That has nothing to do with the OP.

The question is, from the moment the universe was born to the moment it dies, will there be any set of information isomorphic to the set on your hard drive (other than the drive itself, of course) ?

 

[rocketdodger]

Plausible, yes. A great many things are plausible. So what?

Well, although a great many things are plausible, the set of all plausible things is much smaller than the set of all things idiots with no knowledge assert are not only possible but true.

So showing something to be in the plausible set is at least a step in the right direction, no?

 

[rocketdodger]

While information processing is undoubtedly a component of consciousness, this processing happens in living neurons. I don't think it's likely that consciousness can be divorced from the biological tissue that's doing the processing.

I have heard this said, but mathematically there is no argument for why that doesn't boil down to just more information.

Or magic.

 

[godless dave]

Consiousness is biological, not mathematical.

 

[Beerina]

Premise 1) -- consciousness is a type of information processing.

If you disagree with premise 1, then goodbye, this thread is not for you.

I used to think that, but in recent decades (!) I find I agree with Searle, the AI researcher.

He pointed out that consciousness, whatever it is, actually exists and is therefore a physical process. It arises somehow out of the interaction of atoms and energies and other particles.

Intelligence, which is not the same thing, does not require consciousness per se. But the phenomonon of the subjective perceptual experience, being real, thus requires a cause from real-world atoms and whatnot.

And therefore it is not based purely on information processing. In other words, we should not expect an electronic brain to have consciousness arise simply because we perfectly duplicate the information processing content of a wetware brain.

A perfect simulation of atoms and chemistry would easily simulate a fire. But that is not real fire. It cannot burn. A simulation of neurons would, at best, create a simulation of a conscious mind, but it would not be conscious (a real phenomenon) any more than the simulated fire would be a real fire, a physical phenomenon that burns real things.

Note this also makes a side prediction that could, in theory, be tested some day: A perfect simulation of all known physics that had a "brain template" plugged into it, would, when "run", have one of three things happen:

1. It runs perfectly, and passes all Turing tests with flying colors. The consciousness is simulated ala the fire.

2. It doesn't run perfectly, or at all, because we've missed something in physics that's needed for true consciousness. Hence our simulation missed it, and no simulated consciousness arose*.

3. What won't happen is the simulation behaves perfectly because it generated a real-world consciousness to go hand-in-hand with its virtual data processing. This is also easier to understand when you realize that "information processing" has meaning only in terms of what the information represents. It's really just molecules and atoms and electrons and energies bouncing around in a complicated way that drives, somehow, creative outputs to varied inputs. But there's no "meaning" in reality beyond that.



The good news: Your argument still holds with this as a minor modification. All the atoms and matter will still be there, and the difficulty then becomes gathering up the individual ones that used to be you and putting them back together exactly as they are for your brain, right now.

Such a thing, which, at best, is a difficult engineering problem, and, at worst, is impossible thanks to the uncertainty principle, has already been given a name: The Techno-Rapture







* The first two ideas will illuminate the issue under discussion, as well as clear up the old philosophical debate about how consciousness could arise. Evolution, presumably, latched onto consciousness as a feature it could use because it was better than "doing it the hard way", which is to say, building high level intelligence as a result of a pure, consciousness-free, processor. So it must therefore offer something, some advantage, either in quality (deeper thought possible) or timeline (much faster to evolve than unconscious, high-level intelligence.)