The Single Subject: Exploring Connectedness in Physics and Consciousness
Casper Wilstrup is the CEO of Abzu. Follow him on LinkedIn or Twitter to keep up with AI, consciousness, and thinking machines.
In a previous article, I talked about how physics can be interpreted as a mathematical model of everything in the universe as it appears to a single subject within that universe. Physics simplifies the complicated world around us so that we can understand it from the viewpoint of one subject.
But what is this single subject? The “me” that all the equations talk to? I briefly wrote about the conscious self in another article:
The idea of connectedness might help answer the question. If a group of “things” is closely connected so that the rest of the universe influences it in a consistent way — i.e. the equations of physics yield the almost the same result when evaluated by each member of the group — this group could act as a single thing. In other words, every elementary particle is — in a way — a single subject, but under certain conditions, the particles can combine to form a nearly unified whole that act together as a single subject.
But what makes a connection close enough to create such compound single subjects?
Quantum Entanglement?
One possibility is that the strength of the connection depends on something called quantum entanglement between the elements in the group. Quantum entanglement is a phenomenon where particles become connected in such a way that the actions of one affect the other, even over long distances. Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff proposed a theory called Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch-OR), which suggests that quantum entanglement happens in the brain’s cells and might play a role in consciousness.
The Orch-OR theory is not widely accepted and is the subject of debate. Many researchers believe that the brain is too warm and messy for quantum entanglement to play a significant role. However, I think that the arguments against Orch-OR miss an important point: it’s not necessary for other people’s brains to be entangled from one subject’s perspective. Instead, it is my own brain that needs to be entangled for a short time for me to experience single-subject consciousness. And in any quantum state I might describe, in which my brain neurons are entangled, it is unlikely that another random brain would appear entangled in the same way.
Another possibility is something called Integrated Information Theory (IIT). IIT, proposed by Giulio Tononi, is an idea that tries to explain consciousness by measuring how much information is shared within a system. According to IIT, consciousness happens when a system is highly connected and shares a lot of information. The theory offers a mathematical approach to measuring and comparing the conscious experience of different systems.
Artificial Intelligence and Consciousness
Understanding how connectedness relates to single-subject consciousness helps us think about the implications for artificial intelligence (AI). If an AI system is to be conscious, it might need to have a similar type and strength of connection as the groups we discussed. This means that for AI to become conscious, it might need to show either a high level of quantum entanglement (from its own perspective) or a high level of information sharing and connection, like that found in conscious living systems.
Current Thoughts
Right now, I believe more in the quantum explanation than the IIT explanation, but the two might end up expressing the same idea. I find it important to highlight that we can’t observe entanglement in other systems anyway. The moment we try to see if another system is entangled, we break that entanglement.
In future articles, I’ll explore these ideas:
- If quantum entanglement is the answer, it feels like we should experience reality as a series of separate moments of consciousness. Some philosophers agree with this idea. I remember Galen Strawson writing something about that.
- How would an AI system ever reach a state where it experiences more entanglement?
- How is information processing in the brain related to quantum effects?
Until next time, I’ll leave these thoughts hanging.
