In this episode of the Justin Riddle Podcast, Justin dives into the concept of Knightian Freedom where large enough computational spaces become intractably complex to the point where maybe freewill is possible. The focus of this episode is a paper put out by Hartmut Neven (of Google’s Quantum AI Lab) and colleagues from 2021 entitled “Do robots powered by a quantum processor have the freedom to swerve?” This paper discusses how the exponentially large spaces that quantum computers evolve into are so large that they cannot be represented or simulated on digital computers. The size is so vast that it would take a computer the size of the universe computing for trillions of years to simulate even a few femtoseconds of the quantum computers that are about to be commonplace. Similar to modern AI, we will won’t be able to understand why a quantum computer generated the output that it did and perhaps this is the essential ingredient that leads to freewill. Rampant incomputable complexity is freewill. Second, Hartmut and colleagues propose a simple experiment to reveal whether or not there are additional factors that play into what output is generated by a quantum computer. Assume you run a quantum circuit that generates a perfect uniform distribution between many different possible outputs. Then, you observe that the quantum computer does not behave as if there was a uniform distribution, but instead selects one of those possible outputs more often. This is the ‘preference’ of the quantum computer. Next, you develop a circuit to amplify these deviations from uniformity with the intention of amplifying the probability of entering into that preferred state. Now, we have essentially created a ‘happy circuit’ which embraces the quirky preference of our quantum computer. Finally, you can correlate deviations from this happy state to psychological data in an effort to build up a taxonomy of subjective experiences that the quantum computer can enter into. Finally, you embed the quantum computer with its happy circuit into an artificial neural network such that errors produced by the AI push the quantum computer away from happiness and this unhappiness is fed back into the AI. Now we have created an AI system with quantum feelings! Will this newfound sense of subjectivity enable more effective AI systems or will the AI get bogged down by a spiral of despair and refuse to compute?! All of these questions and more are explored here. Enjoy!
All content for Justin Riddle Podcast is the property of Justin Riddle Podcast and is served directly from their servers
with no modification, redirects, or rehosting. The podcast is not affiliated with or endorsed by Podjoint in any way.
In this episode of the Justin Riddle Podcast, Justin dives into the concept of Knightian Freedom where large enough computational spaces become intractably complex to the point where maybe freewill is possible. The focus of this episode is a paper put out by Hartmut Neven (of Google’s Quantum AI Lab) and colleagues from 2021 entitled “Do robots powered by a quantum processor have the freedom to swerve?” This paper discusses how the exponentially large spaces that quantum computers evolve into are so large that they cannot be represented or simulated on digital computers. The size is so vast that it would take a computer the size of the universe computing for trillions of years to simulate even a few femtoseconds of the quantum computers that are about to be commonplace. Similar to modern AI, we will won’t be able to understand why a quantum computer generated the output that it did and perhaps this is the essential ingredient that leads to freewill. Rampant incomputable complexity is freewill. Second, Hartmut and colleagues propose a simple experiment to reveal whether or not there are additional factors that play into what output is generated by a quantum computer. Assume you run a quantum circuit that generates a perfect uniform distribution between many different possible outputs. Then, you observe that the quantum computer does not behave as if there was a uniform distribution, but instead selects one of those possible outputs more often. This is the ‘preference’ of the quantum computer. Next, you develop a circuit to amplify these deviations from uniformity with the intention of amplifying the probability of entering into that preferred state. Now, we have essentially created a ‘happy circuit’ which embraces the quirky preference of our quantum computer. Finally, you can correlate deviations from this happy state to psychological data in an effort to build up a taxonomy of subjective experiences that the quantum computer can enter into. Finally, you embed the quantum computer with its happy circuit into an artificial neural network such that errors produced by the AI push the quantum computer away from happiness and this unhappiness is fed back into the AI. Now we have created an AI system with quantum feelings! Will this newfound sense of subjectivity enable more effective AI systems or will the AI get bogged down by a spiral of despair and refuse to compute?! All of these questions and more are explored here. Enjoy!
#29 - Synchronicity: your mind is entangled with the world
Justin Riddle Podcast
39 minutes 52 seconds
3 years ago
#29 - Synchronicity: your mind is entangled with the world
In episode 29 of the Quantum Consciousness series, Justin Riddle discusses the phenomenon of synchronicity and possible mechanisms through quantum mechanics that could give way to its rigorous scientific study. Synchronicity was coined by the psychologist Carl Jung and is defined as an apparently meaningful coincidence between your thought and some event in the world around you. Examples of synchronicity include simple moments of non-locality such as thinking about a friend and then they call you, learning a new word and then hearing it everywhere immediately afterwards, or dreaming about something and then it happens. These experiences are often brushed off as coincidental (and likely many are!), however, there are people who have experienced synchronicity to such a degree as to call into question whether these coincidences are statistically possible. Furthermore, there are more complex forms of synchronicity such as a famous example by Carl Jung wherein a patient has a breakthrough in her psychotherapy when a symbol from her dream finds its way into the room at the moment that she describes it. This experience was a critical moment in her psychotherapy and made a strong impact on Carl Jung as well.
If we accept the metaphysical framework that the human mind is a quantum computer, then it is at the very least theoretically possible that the operations of the mind could be meaningfully related non-locally to the external world via entanglement. Entanglement was referred to as “spooky action at a distance” when it was first postulated; and Albert Einstein resisted accepting that quantum entanglement was real because he feared that it opened the door to magical thinking and non-scientific discourse. However, in an effort to be radically empirical, we must look at all the evidence and, unfortunately for Einstein, we do not get to choose to live in a locally-determined physicalist universe. Roger Penrose spelled out the limitations of digital / first-order-logical explanations for reality and suggested that there must be non-computable forces in the universe that defy the physicalist dogma. Could it be that synchronicity is a driving force of change in the universe and that physical events are guided by Platonic forms and meaningful constructs? My own experience with synchronicity has led me to believe there must be additional forces at play than locally determined causality. I believe synchronicity can be a profound source of spirituality for the scientifically minded; however, we must protect ourselves against the risk of psychosis and stay grounded in the scientific method! Enjoy!
Justin Riddle Podcast
In this episode of the Justin Riddle Podcast, Justin dives into the concept of Knightian Freedom where large enough computational spaces become intractably complex to the point where maybe freewill is possible. The focus of this episode is a paper put out by Hartmut Neven (of Google’s Quantum AI Lab) and colleagues from 2021 entitled “Do robots powered by a quantum processor have the freedom to swerve?” This paper discusses how the exponentially large spaces that quantum computers evolve into are so large that they cannot be represented or simulated on digital computers. The size is so vast that it would take a computer the size of the universe computing for trillions of years to simulate even a few femtoseconds of the quantum computers that are about to be commonplace. Similar to modern AI, we will won’t be able to understand why a quantum computer generated the output that it did and perhaps this is the essential ingredient that leads to freewill. Rampant incomputable complexity is freewill. Second, Hartmut and colleagues propose a simple experiment to reveal whether or not there are additional factors that play into what output is generated by a quantum computer. Assume you run a quantum circuit that generates a perfect uniform distribution between many different possible outputs. Then, you observe that the quantum computer does not behave as if there was a uniform distribution, but instead selects one of those possible outputs more often. This is the ‘preference’ of the quantum computer. Next, you develop a circuit to amplify these deviations from uniformity with the intention of amplifying the probability of entering into that preferred state. Now, we have essentially created a ‘happy circuit’ which embraces the quirky preference of our quantum computer. Finally, you can correlate deviations from this happy state to psychological data in an effort to build up a taxonomy of subjective experiences that the quantum computer can enter into. Finally, you embed the quantum computer with its happy circuit into an artificial neural network such that errors produced by the AI push the quantum computer away from happiness and this unhappiness is fed back into the AI. Now we have created an AI system with quantum feelings! Will this newfound sense of subjectivity enable more effective AI systems or will the AI get bogged down by a spiral of despair and refuse to compute?! All of these questions and more are explored here. Enjoy!
