009 Quantum Consciousness and AI

ByLaurel Papworth

This episode explores the intricate relationship between quantum mechanics, human consciousness, and artificial intelligence. It delves into concepts like superposition, entanglement, and the many-worlds theory, connecting them to philosophical inquiries from figures like Plato and Aristotle. Ultimately, it poses questions about humanity, identity, and the future in an AI-dominated world.

Quantum Consciousness and Artificial Intelligence. Hmmm… What if the universe, the mind, and AI are all playing out different versions of reality? In this episode, we dive into a journey that connects quantum mechanics, human consciousness, and artificial intelligence. We start with the strange and beautiful notion of superposition—particles that hold infinite possibilities, much like our own minds do when we imagine. We explore entanglement, that ‘spooky action at a distance’ Einstein couldn’t quite accept, and how it mirrors the interconnected web of our thoughts and memories. And then there’s the many-worlds theory—a multiverse of paths branching out like our choices, possibilities, and what-ifs. Along the way, we call on ancient philosophers like Plato and Aristotle, who were grappling with these big questions long before quantum physics and AI arrived on the scene. What does it mean for AI to predict the future while we humans dream of endless paths? Let’s peel back the layers of reality and explore the dance of possibility, connection, and identity. In an AI world, what makes us human? How do we answer the eternal question

  • Superposition and the Imagination of Possibilities
  • Entanglement and the Interconnectedness of the Human Psyche
  • The Many Worlds and Human ‘Multiverse’ of Possibilities
  • Coherence and Insight – A Tale of Human Epiphanies and Machine Convergence
  • Observation and Identity – Quantum Collapse and the Fluidity of Self

With guest appearances by Plato and Aristotle, Heraclitus and Avicenna, Albert Einstein & Niels Bohr, Godel and Steen, Sir Roger Penrose, William James, Søren Kierkegaard, David Hume, Hugh Everett, Thomas Aquinas and others.

And remember… stay human!

#artificialintelligence #quantumconsciousness #AI #consciousness #Australia

Superposition of Thought: Quantum Mechanics Meets Human Consciousness & AI 009

Transcript of Quantum Consciousness and AI episode

[00:00:00.630]
So I’ve been thinking … about a mysterious intersection where quantum mechanics, artificial intelligence, and human cognition converge. Each one examines reality in its own way, revealing both truths and mysteries about the universe, from the classical thoughts of Plato to Einstein, and forward to modern AI researchers, thinkers across time, have contributed insights that form a larger, albeit puzzling picture of what’s real. Let’s start with superposition. Yes, a core concept in quantum mechanics. In this view, particles can exist in multiple states at once, only collapsing into a single reality when observed. And there is some conjecture about this collapse, but let’s take it as posited. This enables quantum computers to process in ways that classical computers cannot. I guess in the same way that quantum science can process in a way that classical physics cannot. Holding possibilities rather than binaries in a state of potential. Plato might see this as a kind of access to his realm of ideal forms, which we’ve covered before, where everything, every concept, all possibility, exists perfectly beyond our sensory reality in another world, a mini-world, waiting to be understood or observed. Sometimes the term observed is interchange with, interacted with, with very small quarks.

[00:02:05.780]
We have to look at even light as an interaction. But that’s not the hither nor there. Let’s go back to quantum mechanics and superposition, aligned closely with Plato’s vision that true knowledge resides beyond the immediate physical world in an ideal realm of potential that we tap into through understanding. Then thinkers like Einstein and Bohr, Bohr, yeah, Bohr, argued over whether these quantum potentials could be fundamental. Einstein famously said, “God does not play dice”, reflecting his scepticism about randomness at the heart of nature. In contrast, Bohr embraced uncertainty, believing that possibility was fundamental. For us, humans, superposition mirrors the way our mind holds ideas, potentials, and futures, and perhaps past, in a mental superposition. Sir Roger Penrose, the physicist and philosopher, even wondered if our ability to imagine an abstract might be linked to quantum processes in the brain, the part of the cells that are microtubules. Our minds can entertain, shape, and transform these possibilities into creative outcomes, reflecting what Plato called called dionoia, the imagination’s access to pure thought and the transformative power of human creativity. Next, there’s entanglement fulfilment. In quantum mechanics, particles that interact can remain linked across vast distances, changing in sync regardless of separation.

[00:04:27.860]
Aristotle spoke of ‘koinonia’, a term often used for human relationships, but equally applicable here, a fellowship or connexion that binds things at their core, even when apart. Similar to spiritual contracts or a deeper intimacy. Entanglement defies what we think of as separateness, much Aristotle’s idea of human beings as social animals interconnected influencing each other even when distance divides us. Are we all connected to source, to a collective unconscious, or are we separate? Our thoughts, memories, and feelings often seem to be entangled in ways which we can’t untangle. They’re woven into our being, shaping us in ways that reach beyond logic. Things feel fated. Determinism is not there, and yet we have consciousness. William James, the modern philosopher, might have called this our stream of consciousness, a web where our experience and ideas influence each other, creating a vast inner network of interwoven meaning. It’s one of the reasons I’m not a fan of the Cartesian theatre, Descartes, Dubito, Cogito, Ergo, sum. I think, therefore, I am. A stream of consciousness seems to me to be more likely. In contrast, AI processes these interconnections statistically. While AI can reveal patterns and relationships through data, what we call the inference divide, it lacks the subjective entanglement that defines our emotional or experiential connexions.

[00:06:44.440]
Ai doesn’t have koinonia with the world. It has correlations devoid of feeling or memory. This may be reflected, I guess, in the paper that was launched the other day that said, We We do not have AGI, that is where AI meets or exceeds our own intelligence, until AI is able to explore the world in an experiential way. But let’s not get distracted. In fact, let’s go further with the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. Hugh Everett’s theory suggests that each quantum event branches into its own universe. A neural network, I guess. Creating a multiverse of endless possibilities. How interesting the multiverse is part of our collective zeitgeist currently. This, to a thinker like the mediaeval philosopher, Avicenna, who believed in multiple dimensions of reality, would seem astonishingly familiar. Avicenna explored the idea of different planes of existence and how each one might contain its own realms of truth and reality. Does this mean that physics, the study of the physical world, of the The real world, is meeting mysticism and the path of initiation? We, humans, explore a multiverse within our minds. Every decision we make, every path not taken, represents an alternative, alternate life we imagine and wonder about.

[00:08:37.860]
I wouldn’t wonder about it too much. Keep your eyes forward on the road. Søren Kierkegaard called this the dizziness of freedom, the existential weight of infinite choices. Aristotle believed this freedom. Our proairesis choice-making faculty defined us as humans. Our ability to entertain multiple futures and act within them is our highest capacity. Meanwhile, AI approaches possibilities in a calculated way, running probability models that calculate outcomes based on data. While we dream and explore our what-ifs, AI computes the most likely what-is. Now, of course, there’s progress in this area as we explore AGI, because while the latest version of GPT, Strawberry, has chain of thoughts already built in, I do see a world with tree of thoughts. Please role play, debate, extrapolate, come to a consensus type of prompts or type of thinking will be built into generative AI. But yes, the AI likes to choose an answer and argue for it. Coherence and insight. A tale of human epiphanies and machine convergence because quantum coherence, where particles remain synchronised in a shared state, is what enables quantum computers to process multiple outcomes until coherence collapses. This fleeting coherence is reminiscent of the moments of human insight.

[00:10:28.140]
This fleeting coherence This is reminiscent of the moments of human insight that Aristotle called ‘nous’, an intuitive flash where disparate ideas come together in a sudden realisation, a glimpse of truth that cannot always be logically derived. I would place this probably close to Gödel’s theorem of unprovable mathematics, or even Steen’s, that we’re unable to have the tools to determine that our tools work. In other words, Can we trust the tools? When Einstein described his theory of relativity as an intuitive leap, he was expressing one of those rare moments of coherence where scattered ideas aligned to complete the picture. AI achieves a form of coherence, too, though it’s different. When a model converges, its patterns align through computation, not intuition. It’s the coherence of statistical accuracy without the flash of insight, the Alchemy of Innovation that we know as an epiphany. Human coherence can be profound and fleeting. An illumination, as mediaeval thinkers like Thomas Aquinas would say, that goes beyond the analysis to touch the ineffable, the mystic path, the path of initiation.

[00:11:54.110]
Let’s talk about observation and identity, the quantum collapse and the fluidity of self. Let’s talk about the observer effect in quantum mechanics, where particles collapse into a defined state, only when observed. Does reality then solidify only in the act of observation? Ancient philosophers, like Heraclitus, would say yes. He believed in the logos, the ordering principle of the universe that we observe and thus participate in. According to Heraclitus, reality is a flowing river, always in flux until we try to grasp it. In many ways, our identity functions similarly. David Hume, in the 18th century, argued that our self, and I’m air quoting here, self is a bundle of perceptions. It’s fluid, shaped by our surroundings and constantly changing. We collapse, the wave function collapses, into different roles: parent, friend, thinker, person vegging on the sofa watching Netflix, warrior playing World of Warcraft. Actually, I’m a mage, but there you go. But based on social context, a bit like particles aligning under observation. AI, on the other hand, lacks this fluid self. It can shift responses based on input, but it doesn’t contain an internal observer that holds a sense of self-continuity. There is no Heraclitean river flowing within it. There is no Dubito Cogito Ergo Sum, nothing. It does not doubt, it does not hesitate, it does not flow.

[00:13:52.400]
So as we look across quantum mechanics, human thought, and artificial intelligence, we encounter a spectrum of possibilities. The ancient philosophers and modern scientists together form a tapestry of ideas, a dialogue across centuries on the nature of reality. Quantum systems reveal pure potential. The human mind transforms these potentials into the richness of thought, imagination, and meaning. And artificial intelligence operates in an altogether different realm. A remarkable but narrow ability to predict without truly knowing. That is currently anyway. Each offers something unique, but thinkers like Plato, Aristotle, and Avicenna remind us that human consciousness, a reality we shape through freedom, imagination, and insight, holds something singular. For I would tell you that if you are wondering if we are free or predetermined, that consciousness itself must argue that we are free. There is no evolutionary need for consciousness if we do not have freedom, if we’re just programmes, I guess quantum computers in a meat biomechanical body. It just doesn’t hold. Anyway, this consciousness, while tantalisingly close to what quantum systems or AI might suggest, is likely ours alone. It’s the place where possibility, identity, and understanding dance together in a way that science, physics, math, for now, still can’t fully explain. Thank you for joining me on this journey. And remember, stay human.

[00:16:06.680]
This has been the Alchemy of Innovation with Laurel Papworth. And you can read the transcript on my website, laurelpapworth.com, with links and resources. Until we meet again.

Resources of Quantum Consciousness and AI

1. Plato and Philosophy of Forms
2. Aristotle’s Concepts of Koinonia and Choice
3. Heraclitus and the Philosophy of Flux
4. Einstein and Quantum Mechanics
5. Niels Bohr and Quantum Theory
  • Book: Niels Bohr: A Very Short Introduction by J. Heilbron (A concise look at Bohr’s contributions to quantum mechanics)
  • Online Resource: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Complementarity”
    Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy – Niels Bohr
6. Roger Penrose and Quantum Consciousness
7. William James and Stream of Consciousness
8. Søren Kierkegaard and Existentialism
9. David Hume on Identity and Self
10. Hugh Everett and the Many-Worlds Interpretation
11. Thomas Aquinas and Illumination Theory
12. Avicenna on Reality and Multidimensional Existence