Algorithms
Equivalence
Emergence
Math
The Anthropic Principle
Substrate-Independence
Significance
Substrate-independence is a term from the philosophy of consciousness, particularly information-based physicalism. It describes the hypothesis that consciousness does not depend on neurons and biology, but will exist anywhere the correct patterns of information exist. According to substrate-independence, the material doesn’t matter. If a computer, or an electrical circuit, or a network of switches, or any other substrate, could do the same thing our brains do, that system would be conscious. If the patterns in your brain were moved into one of these systems, which continued the evolution of the pattern, you would leave your body and go into that system. If this is true, then consciousness is independent of the substrate it rides upon.
I want to take the idea of substrate-independence and make it more general. If we assume consciousness is identified with something to do with information, and works on any substrate that can perpetuate that information, then why not say all information is substrate-independent? If some piece of information is stored as electrical signals on a hard drive, or in a text in a book, or a line of red and white stones, it’s the same information. The substrate doesn’t matter; it’s substrate-independent.
We can take this further, to something even more abstract: scientific models. These models are ideas: organizations or systems that are developed to describe real phenomena. You probably have an intuition for what these are, but here are some examples for clarity: the germ theory of disease, Newtonian gravity, the protoplanetary disk theory of solar system formation, information theory, the canonical ensemble of statistics, and so on.
I should note that it might not be correct to call theories substrate-independent. However, if there is a better term for what I want to describe, I don’t know it. If I come across it, this post will get an update or a revisit. For now, we’ll just go with it.
Note: I have since learned that the general term is "universality." When I get around to it, I will edit or rewrite this post with that term.
For a scientific theory to be substrate-independent, it must be generalizable. This means not all scientific theories are substrate-independent. For instance, there is nothing special about the periodic table of the elements. In another universe, it could be different. A large number of parameters could be changed, such as the charge of an electron or the range of the strong nuclear force, each of which would completely change the periodic table. The periodic table depends on a lot of things being as they are. This is true for all classifications, as far as I can tell, since they all depend on what they are describing.
But theories that describe abstract and generalizable systems are substrate-independent. Information is substrate-independent; it works on anything, in any universe. Evolution by variation and natural selection is substrate-independent. Any system that reproduces itself with changes and subject to selection pressures will follow Darwinian evolution. Life on Earth, instances in a computer program, cultural fads and values, all of these things evolve by variation and natural selection. Darwinian evolution is substrate-independent.
What about math? Addition and subtraction describe any amount of any type of thing where more are added or some are taken away. Circles describe everything whose edge is roughly the same distance from its center at all points. However, I don’t think it makes sense to say math is substrate-independent. Math is meant to describe ideas, which are not material things. Although math can be applied to physical things, it is not particularly designed to do so, and asking whether it is substrate-independent seems like asking whether a rock is too blue for you to lift it. It might make sense if we construe the definitions in just the right ways, but it’s easier to say it doesn’t apply. However, math and substrate-independent theories both apply in every possible universe, meaning they are both families of physically-transcendent truths. So I suppose whether we call math substrate-independent or not depends on personal preference.
If something is substrate-independent, it means it works no matter what material it describes or runs on, nor what universe it exists within. In fact, some substrate independent models may apply to universes themselves. Perhaps consciousness can run on computers, and perhaps it can run in other universes with alternative physics that would render everything inside them unfamiliar to us. It is calming and satisfying to know that some things are true no matter where or when, or even outside of space and time.
For a scientific theory to be substrate-independent, it must be generalizable. This means not all scientific theories are substrate-independent. For instance, there is nothing special about the periodic table of the elements. In another universe, it could be different. A large number of parameters could be changed, such as the charge of an electron or the range of the strong nuclear force, each of which would completely change the periodic table. The periodic table depends on a lot of things being as they are. This is true for all classifications, as far as I can tell, since they all depend on what they are describing.
But theories that describe abstract and generalizable systems are substrate-independent. Information is substrate-independent; it works on anything, in any universe. Evolution by variation and natural selection is substrate-independent. Any system that reproduces itself with changes and subject to selection pressures will follow Darwinian evolution. Life on Earth, instances in a computer program, cultural fads and values, all of these things evolve by variation and natural selection. Darwinian evolution is substrate-independent.
What about math? Addition and subtraction describe any amount of any type of thing where more are added or some are taken away. Circles describe everything whose edge is roughly the same distance from its center at all points. However, I don’t think it makes sense to say math is substrate-independent. Math is meant to describe ideas, which are not material things. Although math can be applied to physical things, it is not particularly designed to do so, and asking whether it is substrate-independent seems like asking whether a rock is too blue for you to lift it. It might make sense if we construe the definitions in just the right ways, but it’s easier to say it doesn’t apply. However, math and substrate-independent theories both apply in every possible universe, meaning they are both families of physically-transcendent truths. So I suppose whether we call math substrate-independent or not depends on personal preference.
If something is substrate-independent, it means it works no matter what material it describes or runs on, nor what universe it exists within. In fact, some substrate independent models may apply to universes themselves. Perhaps consciousness can run on computers, and perhaps it can run in other universes with alternative physics that would render everything inside them unfamiliar to us. It is calming and satisfying to know that some things are true no matter where or when, or even outside of space and time.
No comments:
Post a Comment