Interpreting Quantum Mechanics and Predictability in Terms of Facts About the Universe

A potentially new interpretation of quantum mechanics posits the state of the universe as a consistent set of facts that are instantiated in the correlations among entangled objects. A fact (or event) occurs exactly when the number or density of future possibilities decreases, and a quantum superposition exists if and only if the facts of the universe are consistent with the superposition. The interpretation sheds light on both in-principle and real-world predictability of the universe

Relativistic Implications for Physical Copies of Conscious States

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.Comment: 11 pages, 2 figures. Replacement to fix minor formatting issue

Dennett’s Prime-Mammal Objection to the Consequence Argument

The Consequence Argument is the classic argument for the incompatibility of determinism and our ability to do otherwise. Daniel C. Dennett objects that the Consequence Argument suffers from the same error as a clearly unconvincing argument that there are no mammals. In this paper, I argue that these arguments do not suffer from the same error. The argument that there are no mammals is unconvincing as it takes the form of a sorites, whereas the Consequence Argument does not. Accordingly, Dennett's objection misses its mark

Commonly Shared Foundation of Mathematics, Information Science, Natural Science, Social Science, and Theology

Through a simple thought experiment, this paper shows that there must be a shared foundation of mathematics, information science, natural science, social science, and theology. The thought experiment is to ask a volunteer to write down an arbitrary real number between 0 and 1 with many digits. For example, 0.19823765010367129462…. would be one of such numbers. Then we analyze this experiment result by asking five simple questions: Is the real number a random real? Can the observed real number be produced by a computer? What laws of physics govern the real number creation process? How to predict which number the volunteer choose to write? What is the meaning of the real number creation actions? Without answering these questions, this paper proves that these five questions are fundamental to mathematics, information science, physics, social science, and theology respectively. These five lines of questioning are universally applicable for all human choices. Because these five lines of questions are closely related with each other, we conclude that there must be a commonly-shared logic foundation for mathematics, information science, physics, social science, and theology

Commonly Shared Foundation of Mathematics, Information Science, Natural Science, Social Science, and Theology

Through a simple thought experiment, this paper shows that there must be a shared foundation of mathematics, information science, natural science, social science, and theology. The thought experiment is to ask a volunteer to write down an arbitrary real number between 0 and 1 with many digits. For example, 0.19823765010367129462…. would be one of such numbers. Then we analyze this experiment result by asking five simple questions: Is the real number a random real? Can the observed real number be produced by a computer? What laws of physics govern the real number creation process? How to predict which number the volunteer choose to write? What is the meaning of the real number creation actions? Without answering these questions, this paper proves that these five questions are fundamental to mathematics, information science, physics, social science, and theology respectively. These five lines of questioning are universally applicable for all human choices. Because these five lines of questions are closely related with each other, we conclude that there must be a commonly-shared logic foundation for mathematics, information science, physics, social science, and theology