←back to thread

Is life a form of computation?

(thereader.mitpress.mit.edu)
222 points redeemed | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.005s | source
Show context
popalchemist ◴[] No.45357156[source]
I understand that this post is actually about biology and DNA, but the headline asks a broader and more interesting question than what the article itself cares to address --

At the root of this question is whether life is entirely deterministic. Either position - yes it is, or no it isn't - is unfalsifiable.

And in either case, one must live as if life is not deterministic, or else one's sense of agency and meaning dissolve.

replies(1): >>45357246 #
noduerme ◴[] No.45357246[source]
Just because something is computational doesn't mean it's deterministic. There are quantum effects and ghosts in the machine.

Also, maybe the goal of the computation isn't to generate a deterministic output. Maybe it's just to compress a lot of very random input, in a way that smooths out the noise. In this way life could be essentially random on purpose, because all the varieties of randomness are better at modeling the data (the observable universe) than a classical deterministic function would be.

replies(1): >>45357735 #
selcuka ◴[] No.45357735[source]
> Just because something is computational doesn't mean it's deterministic. There are quantum effects and ghosts in the machine.

Maybe? It is correct according to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, but there are other interpretations that are deterministic.

replies(1): >>45367531 #
popalchemist ◴[] No.45367531[source]
Yes, agreed to both points; but generally speaking the consensus is that physics, dealing with immutable laws, pertains to and operates within an assumed context of determinism until proven otherwise.

I happen not to believe in this, personally. It seems to me that the non-dual metaphysical teachings of the East show us that determinism happens within a sphere that is subject to free-will. The realm of phenomenology is a subset of something greater, where nothing is bound by conditions. This is the way things necessarily must be for free will to exist, by the way.

replies(1): >>45381407 #
selcuka ◴[] No.45381407{3}[source]
For the record, I agree with you. I was just pointing out that "quantum effects being non-deterministic" is not a universally agreed fact.

Ironically, the Copehhagen interpretation is the relatively easier one to grasp. Other interpretations, such as Many Worlds, make it much more complicated. Can we really speak of free will if we actually make every decision that we possibly could?

replies(1): >>45393609 #
noduerme ◴[] No.45393609{4}[source]
You have multiple worlds, but in this one your choices and events seem to be deterministic. Meanwhile you make all other possible choices in all other worlds. So zoom out. How did you end up in this world and not one of the others? Why are you conscious of this one and not that one? Because in that one, just as in this one, your consciousness is defined by your choices. You are not the same you over there. That really is the essence of free will, isn't it? You are the you who exercised the free will to go this way, not that way. The world each of you live in is a combination of external events and your own decisions.
replies(1): >>45394659 #
1. selcuka ◴[] No.45394659{5}[source]
Yes, this definition of consciousness would be a good solution to the parallel universes problem.

Unfortunately, we won't get any real answers related to consciousness, or specifically the "hard question" and the "even harder question" in our lifetimes, if humanity can ever crack those.

replies(1): >>45402220 #
2. noduerme ◴[] No.45402220[source]
I think the proof is that we're still alive.

And 10 seconds later, we're still alive.

An astronomically tiny fraction of possible worlds would result in us being alive at all.

IMHO, we have total free will, but we can only be conscious of a world where we're not dead. That eliminates most of them. I don't know what further proof we actually need. If it's true, it will become more and more obvious over time as you outlive your peers, then outlive every other living thing on the planet. If not... well, I would have no way to prove that you didn't live forever (in your timeline). Best of luck to us, lol.

[edit] also, just back to the original topic... if the point of this universe algorithm is to monte carlo stuff, like compare a billion versions of the stock market on each of a billion planets, then each run is randomized and free will is a requirement. No individual timeline is pre-baked because the randomness has to go down to the quantum level to make it not be deterministic. If our universe were deterministic, there would be no reason to run the sim.

[edit 2] this is what I've thought for about 15 years, but I just pulled the above summary completely out of my ass. So you won't know until your brain is conscious in a tank orbiting Saturn 200 years from now, and Farrah Fawcett wakes you up and you go... "That guy from HN was right!"