Edit: my attempt to elaborate on the idea from the story ... I don't know if I can summarize the concept that well -- I think the framing within the story for the plot is something along the lines of: 1. Mathematical truth exists 2. There is an existential difference between a mathematical truth and a specific occurrence of the "pattern" described by that truth within the physical material of the universe.
I think the eli5 example in the story is based on the integers. You have the integers which are infinite, and you have an instantiated version of some number n if you have an occurrence of n things in nature. The reality of n is fundamentally different if you are in A universe with "n things" vs one with only m things m<n.
I think that's the motivation for the concept -- and in the story a researcher sets off to find scenarios where the universe had not yet "instantiated" one of the "laws" that could be derived from mathematical reality -- and ends up finding out that there is more than one possible way for the laws of "reality" to expand ... -- with different implications on what laws might be discovered in the future ...
EDIT: Thanks for the expansion! Fascinating and really interesting idea. The idea, "There is an existential difference between a mathematical truth and a specific occurrence of the 'pattern' described by that truth within the physical material of the universe" is a fascinating one.
That sounds completely absurd to me given that we can't even agree on a definition for consciousness.
It doesn't matter what you think conscienceness is or whether there is agreement on it. (Sorry if this is harsh.)
And even if consciousness is an emergent property of the structure of the brain, how could we have a simulated brain report that it is experiencing consciousness when we cant define what it is in the first place?
it's not something that is even worth discussing. of course if you made an emulated version of a brain in a VR with the same structure and neurological action and it reported consciousness, then it would be conscious, of course, yes. This is like asking whether NES games can "really" be running in a browser, even if the browser is emulating an NES system and includes the code of the original cartridge. Is the game "really" running? Can you "really" play it? Meaningless questions. If the VR person with the same brain topology as a human and hundreds of billions of neurons reports consciousness then of course it has it. why would being emulated suddenly make it different from all 7 billion humans running natively in the world, especially if theoretically it could be compiled from the same source code (which we have a copy of, DNA was sequenced in full in the 90s).
Since my comment was about a thousand years out, there's no question and we don't need to discuss these things. It's open and shut. I don't need to give any citations.
I find it amusing that you think a topic as widely studied and disputed as consciousness is "open and shut" because of some assumptions that you choose to make. Nonetheless, I do appreciate hearing your perspective so thank you.
I completely discount this possibility and think it's not worth discussing. So, you are right that my mind is very closed to any alternatives to what I've stated, though as in your example of an antenna, we could describe such alternatives rigorously. Not worth our time. (IMO). Thanks for the replies.
>and can impinge upon the simulations at any time
A simulation could just be some states. Consider the rule, double and subtract one to get to the next world-state, over the integers, and start the world with the state 1. So the next state is 1. The one after is also 1. The one after is also 1. The universe is stuck in a static state.
As I, you, or a Python script is modeling this universe, where does the outside universe "impinge" on it?
Then let's do a different universe, starting at 2. Then the next state is 3, the state afrer is 5, the state after is 9, and so forth.
As you do this universe in your head, where does the outside universe "impinge" on it?
There is a problem, however. All future states are well-defined in the universe I've given even if nobody in our universe or any other is calculating them.
It is trivially obvious that the human mind is an emergent property of its neural firings (of the brain), and that replacing some part of it with a black box that interacted with the rest would leave it with the same emergent properties, even if this black box were modeling in a different medium.
The question is, if you can model the whole thing over a well-defined program that did not require non pseudorandom entropy, then it would be similar (just start with more complex data than 1 or 2, and more complicated rules than double and subtract one) - so in order for these states to exist, would anyone have to actually calculate it, or is it enough for these states to be mathematically defined?
What I am saying is that it is a statistical certainty that within a thousand years we can create a deterministic model of a brain in a VR, where the brain reports consciousness. (this is 100.000% absolutely necessarily true and not open to debate. The brain is a couple of pounds of stufd, with just a few hundred billion neurons or fewer - I bet we could practically have the hardware to model one today.)
Does this mean that that model already exists? (before anyone chose to calculate it)?
This is similar to asking whether the quintillionth prime exists. Yes, of course it exists.
Really? Even if nobody calculates it? Then what is to say that we might not exist without anyone calculating us?
Perhaps the states of the universe, like the quintillionth prime, exist without anyone calculating it. Perhaps there is no underlying reality at all, just as there is not an underlying reality in which the quintillionth prime is embedded.