Nir Lahav: What If Consciousness Follows the Rules of Relativity?

Rated T for Teen

The default assumption for most people in the West is that the brain generates consciousness.

So something brainy, neurological happens, neurons are firing,

and then consciousness pops out like steam from a kettle.

Now you think this is not just wrong, you think it's confused.

Before we get technical, what's the short version of what you think is actually happening?

What actually is happening here is a physical process and not only a computational process

because of relativity that from the outside we can measure neural patterns

and from the inside we measure a new physical entity which we call consciousness.

So this is like a one line of the theory.

Okay, explain how most people, most of your colleagues who aren't educated in these matters,

think of consciousness.

I guess, so if we take people from the street and ask them,

what do you think about consciousness, most of the people, including me when I was a child,

would think that consciousness is separate than matter.

It's something different, you know, very dualistic way of thinking.

I guess maybe because of the influence of religion,

we tend to think of a soul or something like that.

But then we saw that actually there is not only great correlation between consciousness and the brain,

but also causation.

If we are stimulus, an area in the vision cortex for example,

we can create a conscious experience of seeing,

even though there's nothing there, not just because of the electricity of the stimulus that we gain.

And in a different area, if we will stimulate,

the person will say that they feel, for example, humor,

that there is something that is funny all of a sudden.

So we have this causality between the activity of the brain and consciousness.

So we would think that consciousness is just something that emerges from our brain.

And if we know enough neuroscience and we understand enough the computations of the brain,

then we will explain the emergence of consciousness.

But it's not the case.

I mean, in philosophy for millennia and in recent years from let's say the 70s,

we know that there is a very hard problem here.

There is a big mystery about consciousness.

I think that most of scientists don't appreciate enough this hard problem.

But it's there. There is a really big mystery here.

We cannot just say that consciousness is computations of the brain.

Look, for those who are just tuning in,

we'll go over your relativistic theory of consciousness,

which has over 100,000 downloads, by the way.

And it will be explained extremely simply to the audience with intuitive analogies.

I'll even explain your own theory back to you to ensure that I understand it.

And then I'll tell you what troubles me about it.

Sure. Excellent.

Anyhow, you said something super interesting.

If I heard you correctly, it's that it's not just a computational process.

It's a physical process.

So many viewers of this channel may have heard of the church touring thesis.

Maybe they've even heard of the physical church touring thesis.

Are you not accepting the physical church touring thesis?

Do you think there's more to physical processes to physics than what's computational?

So I think that there are two questions, separate questions here.

One is about the computations.

And the church touring hypothesis is about the ability that,

if something can be computed, then we can build a computer,

or a chewing machine that will compute it.

I have no problem, I'd say.

But it doesn't mean that our brain only creates computations.

Of course, our brain creates lots of computations.

This is what a cognitive system does.

It gets information from the outside world,

manipulates it with computations and creates representations

and in the end of the day creates outputs.

What I'm trying to say is that it's not enough in order to create consciousness.

Now we'll see, soon we'll see why.

The problem here is what the proper name for this problem is the explanatory gap.

Now because of the explanatory gap,

it's not enough just to speak about computations.

Now, so what do I mean by that?

The explanatory gap is because, let's say that you are feeling happiness right now,

because talking with me, it's such an amazing event.

Right?

You see, I know everything.

Now, let's say that I can check your brain.

And I will find the neural pattern of your happiness.

But I will not know that this neural pattern is all about your happiness.

I need to ask you, what do you feel right now?

What do you experience?

And then you will tell me how I feel happiness,

which is already a bit weird that it's not public.

I don't know what you feel.

I don't know what you experience.

I need to ask you in the end of the day.

But then it's not enough because we think

that the brain creates our conscious mind.

So I would expect to find in your brain all the process

of creating your experiences like creating your happiness, for example.

Oh, you know what?

Let's take even a simpler example.

Let's say that you see now my glass here.

And you have experience of this glass, right?

And I'm, again, I will check your neural patterns

until I will find a representation of this glass.

But this representation is not the actual experience that you have of the glass.

Because this representation is a state in our brain.

Right?

So when we look at the brain, we try to understand how it works.

And we can check like the space of all states

that the brain can create, you know, our neural network.

It's a vast neural network.

So it's a vast state space.

And then one of those states will be the state

that represents the experience of this glass.

Now, when you experience it, you experience something

that has a bit of a blue color and some kind of a height.

And it's a 3D shape, right?

But then when I check on this state of this representation in your brain,

I will see something completely different

because this state space is composed of the variables

of how your brain works.

For example, maybe it will be one of those variables

will be the voltage of the membrane of your neurons.

Or maybe another variable will be

which chemicals are being released right now over there.

So we have lots of physical processes

and all of them together create this state that represents the glass.

But in the end of the day, what you experience is something completely different.

You know, it's something with colors, with height, 3D shape.

So where is it in the brain?

How can the brain create it?

Right?

We assume that the brain needs to create all those properties

that you actually see, you know, that you actually experience.

But then the representation that I see in your brain

has a completely different kind of properties.

So where in the brain, you know,

we can see the creation of the actual experience, of the actual glass.

And the answer is that nowhere, nowhere in the brain

because the brain can do one thing.

It can create neural patterns.

And it can create more and more neural patterns,

more and more complex emergence of a complex neural patterns.

But it always stays with neural patterns.

So how can those neural patterns be translate

into the actual experience of a glass?

Okay.

This is in a naturally hard problem

and you know, the explanatory gap.

You know, there is a gap here between the first person point of view,

the experience of a glass,

and the third person point of view when I look at your brain

and see only in your representations.

And it's not clear how can there be even a reduction

between, you know, the experience of the glass

to the actual patterns in the brain, right?

So that's why we cannot say,

it's not enough to say that, you know, the brain just make computations.

Because all those computations,

this is exactly what we, what I described before

with the state of, you know, of neural patterns.

And it's not enough in order to explain how the conscious experience

is being created, right?

And that's why it hints that we need more

than just computations in order to understand this, you know,

mystery of consciousness.

Let me see if I got this correct.

In a third person scientific point of view,

there's something of a neural state.

Let's call this P for your brain.

And then there's something that some P's,

so some neural states correspond to,

or they seem to produce like a Q.

Let's call that the first person qualia,

or the first person phenomenal consciousness.

So if P then Q,

but if P then Q doesn't seem to follow from logical necessity,

it just seems to be something extra added on.

And the question is, well,

where does this if P then Q come from?

And are Q and P of a completely different nature?

Are they twins of the same coin?

Some elimitivists will just say that Q is equal to P,

some illusionists will say that Q should be replaced with Q star,

some diminutive version of Q,

that in fact there is no qualia,

that's a Daniel Dennett type phrase.

So there are various responses,

and then a Bernardo Castro may say something like,

well, the P comes from the Q.

Right.

So one way of looking at the explanatory gap,

at least for me,

is to think in terms of this conditional if P then Q,

and then what's the relationship between P and Q

and the truth value of this and where it comes from?

Tell me if I'm wrong.

No, you're right.

It's a good, good way to present the explanatory gap

and the hard problem.

I think that it's not enough.

If someone is here for the first time,

and here you know this hard problem for the first time,

I think it's not enough.

In order to understand why there is a problem here.

I think the, you know,

the deeper layer is to understand that we cannot identify

between the neural patterns and the computations

with the experience just because they are very different

from each other.

They have even opposite properties.

For example, again, your neural patterns are public.

If I really want, I can, you know,

open your brain and see your neural patterns,

but your experience is not public.

So we have a property that is actually opposite between the two.

So there cannot be identity because of that, right?

If there is an identity, then everything should be the same.

But it's not the same.

Actually, we have a property that is the opposite

between neural patterns and computations

and your conscious experience.

So they cannot be identical.

They cannot be the same.

And then also it becomes much harder to explain how those experiences

can come about from, you know, and your patterns.

How can you do this reduction?

If they have such different properties,

even, you know, opposite properties,

I think this is the essential part here.

You know what?

I have another example for that.

People sometimes ask me, isn't it a bit like a computer?

Like the brain is...

Like in the computer, we have zeros and ones.

We have the machine language.

And this is...

If we take the brain as a computer,

we have the machine language of the brain,

all those neural patterns.

But then, in the end, you can see on the screen of the computer

some images.

This should be consciousness.

This should be our conscious experience.

What is the problem with that?

The answer is that with our brain,

we cannot find the screen,

the screen of the computer in this analogy.

We only have more and more machine language,

more and more neural patterns.

And somehow, miraculously, from those neural patterns,

boom, you have the screen.

But where is it?

You know, we think that with science,

we need to explain everything, right?

With physical mechanisms.

So what is the physical mechanism that takes us

from the language of the brain

to the actual screen where we can see the experiences?

And there is none.

The brain only has those neural patterns.

So this is the hard problem in other words,

at least how I see it.

Okay, now what is your response to the hard problem?

What is your theory of consciousness?

Okay.

Why is it called a relativistic theory of consciousness?

But you know, before that,

we didn't speak about what is consciousness to begin with

because for many people,

it can be something different.

So just let me say very briefly that consciousness,

you know, there is a canonical way of thinking about consciousness

from Thomas Nagel in the 70s,

that consciousness is,

if the creature has something that is like

to be the creature,

then this creature has consciousness.

So for example, when we awake

or when we are dreaming even,

we have something that is like,

you know, again,

you have something that is like to see this glass.

You can, you know, for you,

it's like, I don't know,

it's a round shaped and so on, right?

But then when we in deep sleep

or under anesthesia,

we have nothing that is like.

It's all black, right?

Nobody is home.

And that's why you don't have consciousness then, right?

So this is what we try to understand.

This is something that is likeness, right?

And the problem is that we cannot find

how the brain,

how can we do a reduction

from this property that we have

something that is like

to experience ourselves

and the outside world?

How can we do a reduction from it

to brain patterns?

Okay?

So just to be clear

for what we are talking about here.

Sure.

Now one of the reasons why

I used to ask for people's definitions of consciousness

and then I stopped,

one because many people had different definitions

and another was because

I kept hearing what it's like

and that never satisfied me

because people would propose it

as a definition as if it's not circular.

So if I said,

what is consciousness?

And then you said it's experiential.

You experienced something.

Then I could just say that's a synonym of consciousness

and it's circular.

But then someone says,

well, what is consciousness?

It's what it's like.

And then I say,

well, what the heck do you mean by what it's like?

And you couched yourself

into some experiential element anyhow.

So you're just two nodes deep

of a circularity rather than one node deep,

which isn't much of an improvement on circularity.

What do you make about it?

So I think

that it doesn't capture something important

about consciousness.

At least it captures

what it's not.

Now, because it captures the fact

that when we in deep sleep,

with no dreams, for example,

with nothing that is like,

you know, it's only black,

even to say black, of course,

it's just a metaphor, right?

We are just not there.

And all of a sudden,

when we wake up,

boom, everything comes back.

So I think that this definition

to have something that is like,

at least capture that, you know,

this difference.

But of course, it's not ideal.

But it gives us something to work with.

A starting point.

Because without that,

as you said, different people

can define consciousness

vastly different.

And then we will speak about different stuff

and we cannot make any progress.

So we need to start somewhere, right?

Even if it's not a very good definition.

And in physics, by the way,

we don't really use lots of definitions.

We use much more the relations,

like equation.

If you can think about an equation,

it's more about the relations

between different properties,

like F equal MA.

So you have those properties of false,

matter, acceleration,

and what are the relations between them?

No one asks exactly,

okay, but what is the definition of an S?

It's actually not that simple.

What is the definition of energy?

Right?

Because you can say,

we know that mass is an energy

E equal to M C square.

Einstein showed us

that mass is just a form of energy.

But then, okay, so what is energy?

Okay, this is a

wider question, right?

It's not exactly clear what energy is.

So, again, definitions

are not that important.

It's just a good starting point.

So we will be on the same page here.

Okay?

So, and that's why for me it's good enough.

Most of my best ideas don't happen

during interviews,

they come spontaneously,

most of the time in the shower,

actually, or while I'm walking.

Until I had plot,

I would frequently lose them

because by the time I write down half of it,

it's gone.

I tried voice capture before,

like Google Home,

and it just cuts me off in the middle.

It's so frustrating.

Most of my ideas aren't these 10 second sound bites.

They're ponderous.

They're long-winded.

And I wind around.

They're discursive.

They're five minutes long.

Apple notes,

even Google keep,

the transcription there is horrible.

But plot lets me talk for as long as I want,

and there's no interruptions.

It's accurate capture.

It organizes everything

into clear summaries,

key takeaways, action items.

I can even come back later and say,

hey, what was that threat I was talking about

regarding consciousness and information?

In fact, this episode itself

has a plot summary below,

and I'm using it right now over here.

My personal workflow is that I have

their auto-flow feature enabled,

so it sends me an email anytime I take a note.

Look, the fact that I can just press it

and it turns on instantly,

like right now,

it's starting to record,

without a delay,

is extremely underrated.

This, by the way,

is the note pro,

and then this is the note pin.

I have both.

Over 1.5 million people

use plot around the world.

If your work depends on conversations,

or the ideas that come after them,

it's worth checking out.

That's plot.ai slash

T-O-E, use code T-O-E

for 10% off at checkout.

I actually have a video about how

global energy in general relativity

isn't a well-defined concept.

That is something that the audience

can click on if they like.

I'll put a link on screen.

Anyhow, it seems like most

of the groundwork has been laid.

So let's get to your theory

and it's going to be developed slowly,

over the next two hours,

what is relativistic consciousness.

So if you're listening,

and you're not getting it,

just keep listening,

because I want to make sure

all the conceptual scaffolding is there,

I imagine that'll take a couple hours.

So now let's get to your theory.

Okay, so because

it seems like a neuroscience

cannot really solve the

this explanatory gap.

It will be, it will,

it always stuck

in the third person point of view.

Right?

So we need something completely different.

Now to be fair,

it seems like physics also

will not do the trick here,

because physics also

tells us about relations

from the third person point of view.

But the thing with physics

is that

it's very

unintuitive

and it has lots of

explanatory power,

which is very intuitive.

For me, let's say,

it's a bit like,

you know, there is this

Plato cave analogy,

you know, for Plato

more than 2,000 years ago.

He said, maybe all of us

are in this cave. We cannot see

what is out there,

what is the real reality.

We see all need those shadows

in the cave.

And we think this is it,

but it's an illusion, right?

We need to go out

of the cave to understand

what is going on there.

Now,

if Plato is right

and we do

living this sort of illusion, right?

It's the only shadows

of the real thing.

Then it means that

we, but surely,

we will see

surprises, we will see things

that we are not used to, right?

Because we are stuck in the cave,

our common sense

is developed for the cave.

So when we go out of the cave,

our common sense will fail us

and everything will be

weirder and weirder

and more and more abstract.

Interestingly, this is exactly the situation

with physics.

We want to understand the theory of everything.

And then we found ourselves,

understand how

reality is much weirder

than we thought.

And

very not intuitive

and our common sense

breaks over and over again.

You know,

even think about

Newtonian mechanics

over there

already it was weird for people

that actually we are moving

although we cannot feel it on Earth.

And later on Einstein,

you know, special relativity

is, like,

time is both dimension,

you know, past and future

coexist.

Wow, you know, it's like, it's crazy.

And then, and then,

general relativity, you know,

the big band

we started from there

and like, space time actually created

in the big band.

So many weird things.

And then, of course, you know,

quantum mechanics.

Don't let me start with quantum mechanics, right?

Superpositions and everything.

Right? So,

it's become weirder and weirder.

And because of that,

we can hope that maybe there is

a trick here

or something that we can use

in order to explain

also consciousness.

Now, because physics

is much more than just to speak about matter.

Now, what is matter?

Now, according to our

most advanced

theory,

if we think about

matter as mess of

particles,

this is not

something that is

the elements of the universe.

The elements are fields,

fields which possess

properties like energy,

like momentum,

you know, and then those fields

can rotate

and create, you know,

like something that looks like

particles for us, right?

So,

so when we think about the brain

materialism and reduction,

it's a bit,

it's too simplistic.

We know that nature

is much more

beautiful and deep

and weird than that.

Right?

So, we can,

so then I ask myself, what can we use

from physics?

Maybe in order to understand consciousness?

And the idea is that we can use

the principle of relativity.

And this is, for me,

it's a very important principle.

So, maybe before we go into my theory,

maybe let's talk about

this principle of relativity.

Okay? From

a physical point of view.

A lot of people ask

your theory. So, my, the name of my theory

is the relativistic theory of consciousness.

So, people ask me,

does it mean that it's about

Einstein's relativity?

Is it about space, time,

Lorentz transformations,

and so on?

And the answer is, and no,

this is not about that.

It's about the principle of relativity,

which is

the philosophical principle,

you can say,

in the basis of

Einstein's relativity theory.

So, the Einstein's relativity theory is

just one case

of a much broader concept,

called the principle of relativity.

And it started

much before Einstein.

Already with Newton,

we're actually already with Galileo,

you know, the father

of our modern science.

He already noticed that

you cannot distinguish

between someone that moves

with constant velocity

and someone that will be stationary,

you know, that does not move

at all.

All physical

experiments that we can do

will not show us

any difference between the two.

So, if we try to use physics,

we try to use experiments,

we cannot distinguish between them.

For example, a canonical example,

let's say that I take

this paper ball

and I throw it in the air,

it will go back

to my hand.

It's a very stationary, right?

But then,

a friend of mine

can do the same

experiment

on an airplane

that moves with constant velocity.

He will also

throw something in the air

and it will also go back

to his hand, right?

Because of inertia.

Object moves

continue to move

with constant velocity.

So, it will go back

to his hand as well.

So, he will conclude

that he is also stationary, right?

So, this is

an example.

So, Galileo understand.

There is something interesting here.

There is

relativity here.

There is no one

absolute answer for the question

what is your velocity?

It depends now

on the observer,

on the frame of reference of the observer.

So, the observer

will always measure that

they are

at rest.

But other observers

maybe, you know, going

backwards or something like that, right?

So, this is the first case

of relativity.

So, the principal

of relativity states that

there is nothing,

there is no

absolute frame of reference.

And because there is nothing

absolute,

we left with

observers what the observer

measures,

defined reality.

You know, defined,

defined the

physical properties.

So, if we have two systems,

with two observers,

two different systems,

but both of them

do experiments

and see that all the results are the same,

then we cannot distinguish between them.

They are

equivalent.

There is no absolute

property somewhere that can distinguish between them.

If we did all the measurements that we can do, you know,

in principle, we did everything that we can.

All kind

of experiments

and all the results are the same.

You know, so it means that

they have the same laws of physics,

you know, and they are just

equivalent.

And this is exactly what Galileo understood.

Both

me as a stationary

observer

and someone on the

airplane that moves

in with constant velocity.

Both of us will measure

the same physics,

the same results that we are

measuring.

And that is why we are

equivalent

and we cannot be distinguished.

And that is why there is no absolute

property that can distinguish between us, right?

So,

if we ask, who is right here?

Who is really

in

you know, at rest and who is really moving?

Because when I see

my friend on the airplane,

I will say, hey, you are moving.

So, who is right?

Both of us are right.

Because it is relative.

There is no absolute answer here.

So, Galileo started

with this principle of relativity.

But then there is

another important part

of this relativity,

which we call relationalism.

Now, relationalism means

that the properties

that we see around us,

the physical properties,

they are not

absolute as well.

They are

a manifestation

of the relation in the system.

So, let me give you an example,

what I mean by relationalism.

In the days of Newton,

there was another genius,

another huge mathematician

and philosopher,

Leibniz.

Now, Leibniz

and Newton argue between them

about space.

If space and time actually

are they absolute

or relative?

So, Newton thought it's

absolute.

Leibniz thought

they are relative.

So, in his mind,

in his mind view,

he saw space and time

as something relational

and not absolute.

Because we have objects,

the relations between the objects,

manifest space,

relations between events,

manifest time.

So, this is

an example for relationalism.

If Leibniz is correct,

then space and time

are relational.

They are not absolute.

They are manifested

because of relations

between the objects

and relations between events.

Now, we don't know,

by the way,

if Leibniz is correct,

like, is space

relational

or is it absolute?

It's still under debate.

So, for example, Newton thought it's

absolute.

And yeah, he had

the good arguments,

arguments for that.

Einstein showed us that actually

space and time

relative to the observers.

But still,

in his general relativity,

space has some absolute

how to say,

like, absolute property

as well.

Because you can have a space

and you can have a curvature

even if you don't have any

energy, momentum,

or mass.

And still,

you can have solutions

for his

exactly,

even without

space time can have curvature,

exactly,

for dimensions.

You can have curvature,

even if you don't have

any energy, momentum

in the universe.

So, is it relational?

Now, it seems like

absolute,

all of a sudden.

So, it's still

debatable.

But in any case,

the principal relativity

grows hand in hand

with this relationalism.

He had another

excellent example for, you know,

the principal of relativity

and for relationalism.

This is his

equivalence principle.

I think it's a very important example.

So, let's go into it before we go to my

theory.

Before you go to your equivalence principle,

the reason your theory is

titled relativistic consciousness

or relativistic theory of consciousness

is not because of special relativity

or the guide

that allowed Einstein to come up

with the theory of special relativity,

which is thinking

relativistically.

And then another guide

Einstein used now for

GR for general relativity

was the equivalence principle.

So, you're going to talk about that.

But both of those were guides

for Einstein to develop physics theories.

And you're not looking at the physics theories

and then coming up with

Einstein and then being guided

by that, but in the consciousness realm.

Exactly. To be even more

exacted that,

what guides Einstein,

what guided Einstein was

the principal of relativity,

as I said before.

And out of that,

in order to show

that relativity still holds

this relativity

that only inertia

in terms of reference

are actually

relative to each other,

or equivalent to each other.

And he developed

special relativity.

And then,

he continued to develop

general relativity.

But in order to develop general relativity,

he needed to use

the equivalence principle.

So, the equivalence principle

is another example

for the principle of relativity.

And now,

I think,

by the way,

that the principle of relativity

is a very basic

and important principle

in order to understand the reality.

I think that we only

scratched the surface, let's say,

about the principle of relativity.

And we can use it

much more

in order to explain

most of the

deep mysteries and questions

that we have today in physics.

Not only consciousness.

So, you know, for me,

it's only the beginning.

Consciousness is one example

of how we can use

the principle of relativity.

So, for me,

the name of your podcast,

for me, the principle of relativity

is like the principle of everything.

This should guide us

in order to go to the theory of everything.

Interesting.

So, my theory about consciousness

is also guided

from this principle of relativity.

And later on,

I plan to continue.

Already now,

I'm writing papers

that will be published about,

the quantum measurement problem

and other interesting questions

and how the principle of relativity

can help us there.

Right?

But now, let's go back to Einstein

and the equivalent principle

and let's see how

I used it to understand consciousness.

So,

in 1907,

Einstein realized

he described it

as his

most

happiest

thought of his life.

And this was

this

equivalent principle. He understood

that we cannot distinguish between

system under acceleration

and system

under gravitation.

You have

again relativity

over there. So, for example, let's say

that

I'm here on earth

and I will take again

this tissue paper

in my hand. Luckily,

I have this tissue paper here.

And when I

release it,

it will fall because of gravity.

Now, let's say that

my friend is an astronaut.

She is

out of space

far away from

every planet, every star.

So, she doesn't feel gravity

at all.

And now, she is accelerating, you know,

let's call it

accelerating upwards

towards, you know, the ceiling

of her spacecraft.

Now, she's doing the same

experiment. She releases

this tissue paper from her hand.

And

the question is

what will happen with that?

Because she's accelerating upwards

and she released the paper.

So, now, the paper continues

with the same velocity

that, you know,

the spacecraft

had before she released it.

Right? So, it will continue

with the same constant velocity.

While

she and the spacecraft

continue to accelerate

so, gain velocity.

Right?

So, from her point of view,

she will see how

this paper

goes down and down and down

until it will

hit the floor.

Right?

Exactly what would happen

if she would be under

gravity, under the influence

of gravitational force.

So, I understand realize here

that

you cannot distinguish

that all the experiments

that we can do

will not distinguish

if we are under acceleration

or

under gravitational force.

So, we have here again

a form of relativity.

Now, let's say that

there is another astronaut

that look at her at

how she accelerates.

And now, if they

don't know about this

equivalence principle, they start to argue

between them.

He will say, hey, you are

accelerating

and she will say, no, I'm not,

I'm stationary.

I have here gravitational force.

And again, who is right?

Both of them are right

because it's, you know,

relative to the observer,

to the frame of reference that we are in.

So, this is that now

we can speak about

relationalism.

There is a relationalism here.

In the sense that

for her, in her frame of reference,

the relations that she measures

manifest gravitational force.

For the astronaut outside

of her spacecraft,

what he measures, you know,

manifest

just accelerating spaceship

with no gravitational force.

So, we have

two different

physical properties

that were manifested

because of different relations

that, you know,

that those

frames of reference can measure.

So, this is, I think, a brilliant

example for both

relativity and relationalism.

When I deepen research

reading papers on, say,

the philosophy of mind or quantum gravity,

it may seem sterile,

but I still don't want my ISP

logging every single page that I visit.

ExpressVPN prevents

exactly that.

Your internet service provider, your ISP,

can see, they can log,

and they can, in the US,

legally sell a record of everything

you do online.

ExpressVPN encrypts all your traffic

and reroutes it through secure servers.

So, your browsing history

stays entirely yours.

I travel for interviews and conferences

constantly and connecting to

a hotel airport Wi-Fi

without protection is something I

often kick myself for afterward.

ExpressVPN's encryption makes those

public networks safe.

It can be used to totally unlock

geo-restricted lectures

and content by changing

online location to any of 105 countries.

There's no compromise on speed either.

The probability of hunting for

work around just vanishes.

Find out how you can get up to

four extra months by clicking the link

in the description box below.

ExpressVPN.com

slash theories of everything

YT. That's expressVPN.com

slash theories of everything

YT.

And now how this relates to consciousness.

Okay.

It can help us

with two major problems.

The first problem is

how can we get into physics

different perspectives.

Because in consciousness

we know that we have different

perspectives.

We have your

perspective. My perspective

we have the first person

third person perspectives

now using relativity.

We see how we can implement

those perspectives.

Now those perspectives

will be different frames of reference.

For that,

I defined

a cognitive frame of reference.

So just one note here,

a frame of reference

usually in physics,

a frame of reference

means a coordinate system

or

who, where is the

origin

of the coordinate system.

For you,

you are the origin for me.

I'm the origin of the coordinate system.

So those are different frames of reference.

Now I,

but I take this definition

to be too narrow.

A frame of reference

is

any observer actually

that has

causality relations.

So it has

causal power

with the

world,

and the world has causal power

with him. So for example,

an electron

is also an observer,

also a frame of reference.

Because it has causal power,

it can influence a proton,

for example. And the proton

influences back on the electron.

And an observer. And also the proton

is a frame of reference

and a different frame of reference.

Right? And a different observer.

Right? And then

and now

you

as a person in space-time

you have your own origin

of, you know, where is the origin

and

from this origin of your own space-time.

Again, you

have causal power.

And that's why, you know,

to speak about coordinate system

as frame of reference

is, it's fine,

but it's only, you know,

a special case of frames of reference.

Okay? Friends of reference.

For me, are

any entity that, you know,

has some causal relations.

Okay? So now we can define

cognitive

frame of reference.

Because if we take a

cognitive system, and again,

a cognitive system means

it's a system that can learn it,

get inputs,

represent the world,

do some manipulations, and create outputs.

Okay? So this

system

is a frame of reference now,

because it has causal relations

with the world. It can

do something in the world

and the world

can make

to this system.

So a

cognitive system is another kind

of frame of reference,

and I call it a cognitive

frame of reference.

So now those cognitive frames

of reference

are

you can think of them

as having different points of view,

if you like,

because they are different observance.

Of course, nothing

about consciousness yet.

For now, it's just

how it can help us maybe.

So it might help us

with that. It might help us

to find, you know, how to implement

in physics different points of view.

It can also

help us

how to create

new properties

with relationalism.

So now, in order to

have physical properties,

I need to measure

relations and those relations

will manifest different properties for me.

So maybe we can find

what are those relations

that create

phenomenal properties.

And then, phenomenal properties

will be actual

physical properties.

So this is why it can help us.

Those two

with those two

properties of, you know,

relativity and relationalism.

So in my first paper,

I try to show

that it's plausible, you know,

the hard problem might be not so hard.

There is a plausible way

how to explain

consciousness

using

relativity and the principal

relativity and relationalism.

But now,

I, you know, I finished writing my

second paper.

And so, and I hope I

will submit it

and publish it.

And over there, I try to build

the actual

case of what

kind of relations we need to measure.

In other,

to manifest

phenomenal properties or consciousness

or quality.

I know all those fancy names

for something that is like.

Okay, so let me see if I got this

correct.

The hard problem of consciousness,

which is

why the physical processes produce

subjective experience at all

or, as I said earlier,

that no physical law

is subjective experience.

That, to you, comes from a false

assumption.

The assumption that phenomenal

consciousness is absolute.

So observer independent.

Exactly.

So then you say a system

is supposed to be thought of relatively

a system either lacks

phenomenal consciousness

or has it with respect

to a cognitive frame of reference.

Exactly.

If we ask the two persons, you know,

one on the ground,

on the station

and the other one on the train

and we ask them

who is correct here?

Who is moving

and who is stationary?

It seems like

that they could

predict each other.

The one will say, I'm the rest

resting one. The other is the moving, right?

But the other will say, no, no, I'm resting.

But actually, it's fine because

it's relativistic, right?

It depends on the observer.

So you can have

opposite properties

with relativity.

Interestingly,

this is exactly what we are stacking

when we think about consciousness

with the

explanatory gap

because

let's say that I try to find

your phenomenal consciousness.

I will not find it

in your brain. I will only

find neural patterns.

So I will conclude

that you're just a philosophical zombie.

You don't have any

consciousness at all.

But I, of course, have consciousness, you know,

I have all those experiences.

But then, of course, you will say the opposite.

You have your own experiences.

So you have consciousness

and you don't find my own consciousness

when you look at my brain.

So we have here, again,

a

lucky contradiction

opposite

properties.

But again,

if we think about it from

a relativistic point of view,

then it makes sense

because from my

cognitive frame of reference,

I measure that I have consciousness.

But I cannot measure that you have consciousness.

And from your

cognitive frame of reference,

which is different,

you measure that you have consciousness.

But I don't have consciousness.

So all of a sudden,

it makes it

much more plausible.

You can understand how can it be

that we have this seemingly

contradiction.

So this is the starting point

of the argument.

And we cannot,

we don't need to go to illusionism.

Like Dennis did, for example,

illusionism.

We don't need to go to illusionism anymore.

Because

illusionism is to say that

we privilege

one kind of

cognitive frame of reference.

We

privilege the

third person

of the reference.

But we don't need to do it anymore.

Now we understand it

with relativity. We understand that

it's wrong to privilege

one frame of reference.

All frames are equivalent.

It's just the matter

of which frame you are in.

And we can do transformation

from one to the other.

All right, now we've set the stage.

And I have a variety of questions.

So firstly, let me, let me see,

first person frame,

a cognitive system

observes that it has

qualia, but from the third person frame,

you just see the neural substrate.

So that's the easy problem.

And that neither is

more fundamental or privileged,

as you said.

So Angelina, who's on the platform,

observes Brad on the

the train.

And it's not that Brad has the true

velocity in Angelina's

relativity analogy.

So in special relativity,

there are transformations, certain transformations

that you could do to compute

precisely what everyone else

will measure from where you are,

from your own measurements.

So there's a transformation there

between the first person

or the observer's frame

and then the third person.

But in yours, it's

as far as I understand, just a delta function

or something like that.

Identity.

It doesn't predict anything new.

So I'm wondering,

I could be wrong.

What is the relativity

in your framework actually doing here

besides serving as a metaphor?

The fact that you cannot

measure from the outside

that I have consciousness

doesn't mean that we cannot

calculate or

we cannot do a transformation

to my frame of reference.

Exactly as Angelina

doesn't

measure that

Brad

has

that Brad is stationary.

Still, right?

If we do the transformation from her

frame of reference,

to his frame of reference,

all of a sudden, because of this

the law, how to do this transformation,

we will see that

now Brad

measures that he is stationary.

Same thing happening here.

I developed

a transformation

so we can start

from my

cognitive frame of reference

where I measure that I have consciousness

but you don't.

Then the rules of this transformation

will preserve

that

when I do this transformation to your

cognitive frame of reference,

all of a sudden,

you will say I have consciousness

or you will experience consciousness

but you will

when you try to find my,

you will measure that I don't have consciousness.

So

this is exactly part of

of why

relativity is so powerful.

We can create those

transformations from one

frame to the other

and you know,

if those transformations are good

enough, then

we get exactly what you will measure.

Right? So it's

and then again in my first paper

this is exactly what I tried to show.

Now,

another thing about that in physics,

in order to say that something is relative

or it means

that as we said before

when we take those two frames of reference

they are equivalent.

So they have the same laws of nature.

So it means that

if I

do the transformation from one frame

to the other,

same laws should exist.

So the equations that describe these laws

should be the same.

Right? We call it invariants.

So the laws of physics

should be invariant

under transformation

of other frames

transformation. Right?

So this is exactly what I showed in my first paper

that we can

I defined those cognitive frames of reference.

I defined how to do

the transformation between them

and show that those

transformations

are invariant.

You know, and preserve

the

equation, you know,

of this transformation actually.

And then

after the transformation,

you, you know, we will,

you, it will describe

what you will measure

and not what I will measure.

Okay? Sure.

In special relativity,

the transformation is a Lorentz

transformation. What group

or what transformation

is it to transform

between a cognitive structure

and then a third person, sorry,

consciousness, first person structure

and then a third person

physical structure?

This is a very good question.

So yeah, Lorentz transformations

are a continuous

transformations. It's a continuous group.

And in my case,

it's not,

so it's over there,

it's continuous group

because it's about space

continuous.

But here,

it's not continuous anymore.

It's a discrete group.

Because now it's discrete,

we move from one frame,

cognitive frame to another,

cognitive frame.

So it's a discrete group.

Now, over there,

Lorentz transformation is also

how do they call it non-compact

transformation? It wins that

you can reach infinity.

And in this case,

when you go to the speed of light,

here,

we don't have

any, you know,

case of infinity,

or something like that.

So it's much easier.

Let's call it transformation.

It's discrete.

It's compact.

And, you know, it's abstract.

It's much more abstract

than, you know, the group

So the thing here

is that

I'm not familiar with any name

that describe

this kind of group.

You know, it will be

good idea to ask

mathematicians, you know,

to ask mathematicians

that are specialized in group theory.

Maybe they know which kind of group is it.

But at least I know it's a group.

And how can I know it's a group?

Because

in mathematics, in group theory,

we have specific conditions

in order to be a group.

And

the my transformation meets

those three conditions.

So the first condition

is a closure.

That you know, this transformation always

create a new

frame of reference.

A new cook difference.

And you can always

you always

stay inside this system

of

cook difference of reference.

And the second condition

is that there must be

an identity element.

So like you

that if you

use this element

on the frame of reference,

you stay on the same frame of reference.

That's why it's an identity.

And then the third condition

is that

you will have an inverse element.

So for example,

let's say that

I start with my

cook difference

and do it transformation

to your cook difference.

Now I can use the inverse

element in order to go back

in order to the frame of reference

that I started with.

So again, I show how those

three conditions

are met

with this transformation

and that's why

I know it's a group.

When I'm wrestling

with a guest's argument about say

the hard problem with consciousness

or quantum foundations,

I refuse to let even a

centilla of confusion remain

unexamined.

Claude is my thinking partner here.

Actually, they just released

a state-of-the-art model.

Claude is the AI for minds

that don't stop at good enough.

It's the collaborator that actually

understands your entire workflow

thinks with you, not for you,

whether you're debugging code

at midnight or strategizing your

next business move.

Claude extends your thinking

to tackle problems that matter to you.

I use Claude actually live

right here during this interview

with Eva Miranda.

This week,

the shared

story is that some providers have something that even comes close to rivaling it.

Claude handles in teralia,

technical, philosophy,

mathematical rigor and deep research synthesis all without producing

slavinely reasoning.

The responses are deckerous,

precise,

well structured, never sick of

phantic, unlike some other models,

and it doesn't just hand me the answers,

percent off Claude Pro when you use my link Claude.ai slash theories of everything all one word.

So there's a mapping between a first person observable and a third person one.

And is there some invariant quantity that they'll all agree on?

Like in special relativity, you have a space-time interval. Is there something else that they'll

all agree on? Yeah, not exactly. Notice that so we used to think about relativity theory,

Einstein relativity theory. So we used to think about the need for some anchor like the speed of

light. But let's take Galilean relativity over there. We didn't have any anchor like the speed of

light or something like that. So it's not you know it's not part of the definition of the

principle of relativity that we must have some kind of an anchor know something that is invariant

all the time like the speed of light. Maybe in the future we will find that there is something

like that also with cognitive frames of reference. But for now I didn't see it. You need to remember

also that. So again, this paper, the first paper was more about to show the plausibility of that.

To show that the hard problem might not be so hard if we take into account the principle of

relativity. Because then we can think, ah okay, now it's a bit like a coin. Now we have the

head and the tail of a coin and both of them are just to different side of the same thing.

And the same now with relativity and with cognitive frames of reference. So one side is

when you measure my brain from the outside and you see neural patterns and the other side

is my first person point of view. But now the question is how can we move on from to speak about

plausibility and to actually show them mechanism. How it can work, how it works.

Let me give you an example what I mean. Let's say, okay two two things two two examples here.

The first example, let's think about equivalent principle. Again, the astronaut from the outside

of the spaceship and the astronaut inside the accelerating spaceship. And again, they

they have different measurements, right? And he will measure that she she is accelerating and she

will measure that she has gravity, right? Now, reduction means if we will try like to explain her

gravity from his measurement of acceleration. Then we can say, oh, we did a reduction from gravity

to acceleration. Now, of course, this is not the case. We don't need to do reduction here,

right? Because it's just two different frames and both of them are right and there is no reduction

here, right? We cannot do a reduction from head to tail. So we cannot do a reduction from her frame

to his frame. Same with consciousness, we cannot do a reduction from me measuring I have consciousness

to you measuring I don't have consciousness from first person point of view or first person

frame of reference to third person frame of reference. There is no reduction here, okay? So this is

first thing that we need to notice here, the relativistic theory of consciousness is not a theory

of like reductive materialism. There is no reduction here, okay? Just two sides of the same

events, let's say. Yeah, suppose it's true. These are two sides of the same. Now, on one side of

the coin is what people would associate with physics and on the other side is what people would

associate with consciousness. Then why do you say that your theory is a physicalist theory of

consciousness? If no side is to be privileged, then it doesn't seem to me that you could reduce it

down to physics, that any argument you could make that would be reducing it down to physics, one

could make to reduce it down to consciousness. Right, excellent question. This is the reason that

it's such an excellent question is that this is exactly what I wanted to speak next. So

first of all, the short answer for your question is relationalism. I would, I claim that consciousness

is also a physical property and it manifests just because of relations that we can measure

from our own cognitive frame of reference. Those measurements, those, those relations are different

than the one that you can do from the outside. And that's why

there are different physical properties that are manifest here. I'm confused as to why it's

called a physical property. Why are you calling it a physical property and not something else

ontologically, some other entity? So what's the difference here between a property and then

just something else? Okay. Another excellent question.

So if we take the principle of relativity, serious enough to be a basic principle of reality,

then all properties and all entities that we can see are just manifestations in a specific

specific frame of reference, like we saw before, gravity or acceleration and so on. Right?

So now we start from not from entities, not from properties, we start from something else. We start

from causal structures, from causality, actually, you know, something that causes change for

another thing, like A changes B. Right? This is causality for me. And now we have some causal

chains, A changes B, B changes C, C changes D. We have those causal chains. And now different

frames of reference will manifest those causal chains differently, according, you know, to the

relations that they can measure. So not all frames of reference can measure the same causal structures.

You know, one frame will measure a causal structure of a spaceship that is accelerating. Right?

Another frame of reference measure that she is actually stationary and she has gravity. Okay? So

so properties and entities now is something very fluidic, if you like, you know, it's like it's relative

now. It's all relational. Okay? But all of those are part of physics now. And the claim is so

I'm a physicalist. But maybe it's a new kind of physicalist that say that physics, you know, the

the basic principle of physics is the principle of relativity and relationalism. And with that,

we can explain everything that we see, including consciousness. So consciousness now will be part of

physics using relationalism, using relativity. Okay? We just need to show which kind of relations

can create this physical property that we call consciousness of phenomenal properties.

So let's dive in how I try to show it in my second paper. Actually, please, this is cutting edge.

Yeah, exactly. It's still not in the air. It's not out there actually. It's bleeding edge. Okay?

Even more like I finish writing it. And now, you know, I'm submitting it to John L. of

consciousness studies. So I expect it to be published in a couple of months, maybe heavy or

something. So we're actually going to hear for the first time what, you know, the next stage,

you can see. So now we need to specify what is going on inside our cognitive frame of reference.

Just to make, just to be clear, it's much easier to understand what is going on when I look at

your brain, right? When I look at your brain, I need to use my sensory system like my eyes,

ears, and so on. Let's make this intimate. Let's say when you're walking at the listener's brain

or the viewer's brain. Okay. I'm looking at the brain of our listeners using my eyes.

And because I'm using my sensory system, the only, the relations that my sensory system

measures are the substrate of the brains of your listeners.

And that's why when I use my sensory system, I will always

manifest the third person frame of reference, you know, the substrate of neurons and their dynamics.

This is, let's call it the easy part. We just need to understand that our sensory system

designed was designed in order to catch the substrate of the world in order for us to

survive. Now, what is going on from the inside from our own cognitive frame of reference?

Over there, we don't have sensory system or sensory devices. We don't have an inner eye.

We don't have some kind of a device in order to see the substrate of our own brain.

So this is not the measurements that we can do. These are not the relations that we can uncover

over there. Those relations are completely different. And that's why it manifests a completely

different physical property. And now I will try to show you that this physical property

has to be consciousness or has to be something that is like, you know, the something that is

likeness. Okay, so this is, so now I set up the frame what we are going to do. Okay, we're going

to go inside our own cognitive frame of reference. Try to understand what are those relations.

We know that they are very different from the sensory system. And that's why it's different

from just seeing a third percent point of view. But we don't know what they are yet, right?

So now let's see what they are. So in order to do that, we need to extend the principle of relativity

to extend it more and more than what we use today, you know, and what Einstein did. In other,

in the end to extend it enough so we can understand what are the relations that manifest

phenomenal properties. So in order to extend it, let's use three scenarios. In the end of those

three scenarios, we will have phenomenal properties. Okay, phenomenal physical properties. Yes,

phenomenal properties as a physical property. Okay. Okay, so the first scenario is about

emergence. For example, let's think about water. So water is the canonical example for emergence.

In the micro scale we have H2O and then in the macro scale we have water that have wet, you know,

wetness. So a new physical property has emerged here. Or is it a limited list? We'll say

it's only a convenient way of describing the complexity of molecules of H2O. It's not really there.

Yeah. You know, there is this kind of philosophical argument, let's say, let all the really,

the all the really is are just those elementary particles, whatever they will be. Maybe quarks and

electrons. Is it true that it's only a convenient way of speaking? So if we take the principle

of relativity, we can find an answer for this question or an answer what is actually

emergence to begin with? What I mean by that is if we were tiny creatures that can measure

the micro scale, we will not measure water or wetness at all. We will just measure

a complexity of molecules, lots of, lots of hydrogens and, and oxygens that have got it, right?

That have some kind of very complex interactions, but no water. So let's call it the micro frame

of efforts. And why we can call it the micro frame of efforts? Because we assume a causal closure.

Now, all the interactions that we measure show us the existence of molecules, but not water

at all. That's why we have a causal closure over here, okay? All the causal chains are just

of the molecules. That's it. So all the relations that we measure manifest for us, a hydrogen

and oxygen molecules, no water, okay? So this is the micro frame of efforts, okay? But now we can

think also about another causal closure of the macro, like something like what we know from our

day to day life. Let's suppose that we can find this causal closure where what we measure

are only water. We cannot measure the actual molecules of the hydrogen and oxygen molecules.

And all the dynamics, all the causal structure that we can measure about water will be only of,

of the continuum hypothesis that everything is continuous, hydrodynamical, only about the fluid

mechanics, nothing about the molecules themselves. So now we can call this a macro frame of efforts.

And in this frame of efforts, the relations manifest for us water and continuous hypothesis, fluids,

all the macro properties like entropy, you know, and so on, okay?

So it means something very interesting about emergence. It means that emergence is also a

relativistic property. Because in the micro frame of reference, if you ask someone from there,

they will tell you, there's nothing like water, I don't know what we're talking about, it's not real,

right? And from the macro frame of reference, they will say, water are real, molecules are weird,

I didn't find any molecules at all, the elements of water are just water droplets,

okay? So now, all of a sudden, emergence is also dependent on the observer. It's not something

that is absolute anymore. So this is the first scenario. We extended a bit, the principle of relativity,

to see how emergence is also relativistic. And now, oh, another interesting example,

it's still about water. Let's suppose that in the future, we can create artificial molecules.

It's not hydrogen and oxygen, but artificial molecules. But we create them such as they create

the macro properties of water. So we cannot distinguish when we look at the macro properties of

this artificial water. It's exactly the same like natural water, right? But the molecules are

completely different. Let's say that we can do something weird like that. The philosophical question

is, is it the same? Is it still water or not if the elements are different? And again, now we

understand that because emergence is relative, it depends on the observer, right? In the macro frame

of reference, when all we measure are just water, over there, the answer is yes, of course, it's water,

right? It's the same. So, so it means something for us about emergent properties, you know,

in order to, yeah, in order to measure them, we need to be in the correct frame of reference, yeah.

The all new 2026 Toyota RAV4 is here, building on everything drivers know and love about Toyota,

with a redesigned look and modern tech that makes life behind the wheel easier than ever.

The new RAV4 comes standard as a hybrid, providing smooth, efficient performance for both city

streets and longer journeys. Enjoy the legendary reliability Toyota is known for in the all new 2026

RAV4. Learn and shop more at toyota.com Toyota, let's go places. Okay, so are you calling these

functional descriptions or causal descriptions? What was the word that you use?

Closal closure. Okay, so I imagine there are several different levels that your brain tracks

causal closure. It could track cells, it could track a circuit, it could track behavior from other

people. There are various levels. What level of granularity is the one that's identical to

consciousness? Because it sounds to me like there may be a version of the preferred basis problem,

but for the cognitive frame before I fix here. Yeah, like what chooses the basis? You could be

too coarse, you could, you're just tracking temperature. And then you could be too fine and you're

just tracking precise physical implementation of everything. So this is a very good question,

but we are still too far away from the answer from how to create phenomenal properties. It's still

not about just an emergence, you know. So you need to wait with this question a bit

because it's still not relevant for consciousness. Although I started with emergence and it seems

like, ah, okay, it's just another consciousness would just be another emergent property.

It's not that simple. If it was that simple, we do that need a relationalism and the

relativity. So hold with this question a bit longer. Something else that is very important here

to notice that of course, now we are speaking from a physical point of view. It's not about

perception, right? It's exactly like when we spoke about velocity or Einstein equivalent

principle. It's not about perception, it's about the physical laws. So we assume that we do all

the experiments that we can do, right? It's like in principle, we did everything we can.

And we know about all the experiments that there are. And if there is no experiment that shows us

that molecules exist, then for us, molecules don't exist, right? If the relations show us

that water exists, then water exists. It's even, you know, I said show us. So it seems, again,

like I'm speaking about perception, but it's not, right? I'm speaking here about the laws of nature,

about what are the actual elements of reality? It depends now on the frame of reference that you

are in, right? So in the macro frame of reference, the actual elements are the droplets, not the

molecules. Sure. Okay? Regardless if there are humans there or not. Just to make sure, yeah, that

it's, you know, this is a very important point here. And I know that you're in the middle of an

explanation, but just as people are listening, they may wonder, well, why doesn't a droplet count

as an observed, a conscious observer? What about an electron? So they may have that in the back of

their mind that's preventing them from fully listening to the rest of what you're about to say.

So can you please address that? A conscious observer? What do you mean by a droplet as a conscious

observer? Does an electron have phenomenal consciousness? Does a droplet of water have it?

I see. Yeah. So yeah, this is very good points. They don't have it. We start from purely

third person point of view, from regular physics. And from that, we need to extend the principle

of relativity until we can get to consciousness and phenomenal properties. So in physics,

observer has nothing to do with consciousness. It's just another world for frame of reference,

as we discussed before. So an electron does not have consciousness. Water does not have consciousness.

Later on, we see what are the conditions for consciousness. And then we can understand which

entities can have consciousness. But yeah, for now, nothing has consciousness yet. Nothing

has consciousness yet. Okay. So now we can continue. So we discussed a bit about emergence.

Now let's think about the second scenario. Let's take it even further away.

What if we can create a simulation, even a simulation of water to begin with?

And now we cannot distinguish between the simulation of water and regular natural water.

What's then? Will we say that the simulation of water is the same like the regular water?

In order to do it even more accurate than that, let's assume that we can create a simulation of

the universe, not only of water, because water has so many causal interactions with other

stuff. So let's just take all the causality that there is. Let's say that we are in the future

and we know how to do it. We know about the theory of everything. Okay.

Court is out of job. And we create a simulation. We call all the equations,

hit the run, the enter button, and let it run. Okay. So now, in this simulation,

the question is, is it real? Can we say it's real like our real world or is it just a simulation?

Now, according to the principle of relativity, again, we can think of another causal closure.

Now this causal closure will be about the causality within the simulation.

What I mean by that is in order to create a simulation, it means that our computer has now

represent, you know, has now all those equations running. So it has variables, some states of the

computer are the variables of the equations. And those states are changing. This is how the

variables are changing. Right. So we have now states in the computer that carry information,

carry content about those variables. Okay. So now, I can find a new frame of reference

where those variables, those are, you know, the causal chains that I measure. Okay. How the

variable changes, I don't know, in the equation of gravity, how the variable changes in the

equation of electrons and so on and so on. Right. So now I found this new frame of reference

where everything I measure is just those variables and those causal relations.

So according to the principle of relativity, according to relationalism, now those variables are

the manifested physical properties and they are real exactly like our own real world. We in our

own real world measure causality and it manifests entities and properties, but also in the simulation,

in this frame of reference of the inside of the simulation, you know, the causalities over there

are those variables and now they are real. Now they will be our physical entities and properties.

And because we put the equations to be exactly like our universe, then the simulation

is real and is exactly like our universe. From in the frame of reference, okay. So if something

has causal efficacy, then it's real. Yes, exactly. If you remember, we discussed before that if we take

the principle for relativity to be the basic principle of reality, we start our elements now

will be causal chains. Okay. And different frames measure those causal chains and according to

these causal chains, entities and properties will be manifested like acceleration or gravitation

and so on. So now I extend it. It might to understand that if something is real, then it is also

causal so that it's an if and only if statement. Exactly. According to the principle of relativity,

something real is something causal, something that has causal relationship, let's call it,

with other entities. If there is something that has no, so in we choose a frame of reference,

first of all, in this frame of reference, if there is something that has no causal power at all

and nothing change it. So no causal relations at all, then it cannot be measured.

And then because of that, it just doesn't exist. It doesn't manifest in this frame of reference.

It can be exist in a different frame, right? Okay. Yes. Okay, I have a quick question. So we're in

this universe. Conceivably, there's another universe that is causally disconnected from hours.

In fact, there are many theories of physics, which posit such universes and even in principle,

not just in practice, but in principle, in some of these theories, we can never know about this other

universe and they can never know about us. I would still say that if those theories are true,

that those other universes exist and they exist to us and we exist to them, it's not just,

sorry, it's not just we exist to them and they exist to us or we only exist to ourselves or

something like that. It's that they exist and we exist. But according to this, you would say,

no, what is real is observer-dependent that our universe is real to us and that's all we could say.

It's more than that. What I would say is that we have most likely infinite number of universes,

each of which has its own causal closure, its own bubble of reality I like to call it.

So for us, our bubble of reality is real. For them, their own bubble of reality is real.

But because there's no absolute frame, we cannot privilege our own frame. So we cannot say that only us

is the real bubble and they cannot say that we are not real because only they are the real bubble.

Right? So everything exists. So we got now like a reality according to this principle of

relativity. If you take it far enough, it will say that reality composes of all those infinite

number of bubbles. All of them are real, but it's relative. They are real because there is at least

two observers, there are at least two observers that can measure each other and they have

this causal closure and that's why it's a real bubble, it's a really universe.

So each bubble exists because of the measurements from within. Let's call it.

So this is the idea and one of my papers, my next papers, will show that

one of the results of the principle of relativity is that the vacuum cannot be empty.

The vacuum cannot be empty. It must contain all those different bubbles of reality.

It cannot be the case that only us exist, only this bubble. If it was the case, then it was an

absolute property, only us exist. Right? So if we take the principle of relativity to be

basic principle of reality, the vacuum, what we cannot measure, actually

full with all those different universes, different bubbles that we cannot, we just cannot

measure them. Okay? So this is one of, you know, and then I show it mathematically and you know,

this is what I will show in my third paper, more or less. So, okay, right. Now I don't remember

what, how did we reach this question? What did you ask? Well, I was saying that what disturbs me

is that much of this framework from what I recall from reading your papers that a cognitive

frame of reference is defined by the dynamics of the system. And then I was wondering, well,

at what scale does a single neuron get a cognitive frame? Does it my cortical column or one of them

or my left hemisphere? And if there's no principled way to draw that boundary, then, then how do we

know what is conscious and what's not? To the physicist listing, there's a preferred basis problem

and physics seems like there's a cognitive preferred basis problem or frame problem. This is very

good question. So your question is actually from an absolute point of view. You know, you try to

understand absolute answer here to get an absolute answer, which scale is the correct scale?

But what we saw with the emergence scenario and with the simulation scenario, actually, is

that we need to think from a relativistic point of view. And then what matters are the causal

relations, as you said before, to exist is to have causal relations. So one neuron exists

because it has causal relations with other neurons in the brain and other stuff right in the brain.

Cognitive system also exists. Now we need to remember what is a cognitive system. And one neuron

most probably is not a cognitive system just because of our definition. Our definition is that

a cognitive system is a system that you know can get inputs, learn, create representations, do

information manipulations and create outputs out of them. If a neuron can do that,

then one neuron can be a cognitive system already. If one neuron cannot do it, then it cannot

be a cognitive system. And let's suppose that it cannot do it. Let's suppose that we need

a bunch of neurons. Now this group or set of neurons, they together, they have causal power,

they react to the world and the world react to them as well. So that's why now they are a new entity.

Okay, according to relationalism, this is now a new entity. And that's why this entity I call

a cognitive frame of reference. No consciousness. Notice no consciousness yet. It's just about a

learning system. Okay, but already we know, okay, already we know from the example of water,

for example, that there is an emergency of a new entity, even though it's not about consciousness yet.

Okay, so we call this entity a cognitive frame of reference. Okay, now we need to continue

because we are still not, we didn't reach our destination, we didn't reach phenomenal properties

at all. But we did some steps towards it already. And let me show you why we did some steps.

Our last scenario that I described was about the simulation and how we can choose

an intrinsic frame of reference inside the simulation, right? In this intrinsic frame,

they will, let's say that someone, you know, that there are humans over there, right? And I somehow

can communicate with them and I ask them, what do you see? Again, not about consciousness.

Okay, I don't want people to be confused here. But let's say, you know, what's inside the

simulation? What do we see in this frame of reference? And, you know, the measurements are

measurements of everything that we see here in the universe. They have stars, they have gravitational

force, electromagnetic force, and so on. But for me, I'm from an external frame of reference.

I see a computer that runs a simulation. I just see a code. I don't see stars inside the computer.

I don't see gravitation inside the computer, you know? So it seems, if I don't know about

relativity, if I think everything is absolute, it seems like that there is an explanatory gap here

because from the inside of the simulation, they have stars in gravitation. But from the outside,

from the external, I don't see them, you know, and I cannot understand how entire star,

you know, with huge mess can be inside my computer. How can I do a reduction here?

It doesn't make any sense, right? So there is an explanatory gap here, not because of consciousness,

just because of this weird situation with the properties inside the simulation and outside the

simulation. But it's only a seemingly explanatory gap because there is an explanation here. There is

no gap. The explanation is relativity, the principle of relativity and relationalism.

From the outside, I measure the substrate of my computer and part, and then I, you know,