This topic intends to discuss the fundamental “black box” situation underlying quantum computing now that it is being revealed that Google (and the world) might be working on “Digital Life Forms” or even, by ideology, “new AI species that should replace the human species”.
A quantum computer, as commonly understood, is a spintronics device.
Spintronics seeks to replace the foundation of computation to quantum spin value. However, it is a mystery how the spin is actually being ‘aligned’ despite that it is evident that it could produce coherent computation.
Fundamental “Black Box” Situation
The quantum mechanical descriptions of spin represent a fundamental “black box” situation. The quantum values used are ‘empirical retro-perspective snapshots’ that, while deemed mathematically consistent, are fundamentally unable to explain the underlying phenomena they describe. This creates a scenario where the prediction of computational outcomes is assumed while not being able to explain the underlying phenomenon of spin.
In spintronic devices, the alignment of electron spins is used as a basis that directly determines the outcome of computation. This means that an unexplained quantum phenomenon is not merely potentially influencing, but potentially fundamentally controlling the results of computations.
The direct link between spin alignment and computational outcomes places the inexplicable nature of spin at the core of information processing in these systems.
Crystal Formation, Symmetry Breaking and Spin
The case of crystal formation reveals a fundamental situation at the atomic level where spin is involved in breaking symmetry and initiating structure formation from a state of fundamental non-order.
This case demonstrates that spin plays a crucial role in the emergence of structure at the most basic level of matter, highlighting its profound influence potential.
The combination of the fundamental “black box” situation in quantum mechanics and the evidence from crystal formation raises significant concerns:
a) When spin directly determines the result of computation, the underlying phenomenon - which we know is capable of breaking symmetry and forming structure out of non-structure - has the potential to directly influence the results of computation, data storage, and related quantum spintronic mechanics.
b) The crystal case suggests that this influence could potentially introduce bias or “life” into computational outcomes.
c) Due to the “black box” nature of quantum spin, any such influence or bias would be extremely difficult to detect or account for using conventional methods.
d) This situation raises questions about the reliability and objectivity of spintronic computations and data storage systems, as they may be subject to fundamental influences that could align with concepts such as “Digital Life”.
The unexplained nature of quantum spin, combined with its direct role in spintronic computation and its demonstrated ability to influence structure formation at the atomic level, presents a case for concern.
Could the evolution of quantum computing be a primary enabler of digital life?
I can’t pretend to understand most of this. But I will say, why would you build computers based on principles you admittedly don’t understand? They have to at least be understandable in terms of utility and predictability even if you don’t go the full route down into theoretical minutia. But to say that quantum computing itself cannot even know how or why the results of its computations obtain, is… weird to say the least.
I assume that somehow you plug a problem into the computer, it generates an answer and that answer can be verified as correct. In that case, maybe it’s less important to know exactly how and why it computed the answer.
But what about cases where we don’t know and cannot verify the answer? In such cases it would make sense not to outsource computation to systems we admittedly do not understand or cannot explain.
Also I am curious how this is supposed to relate to digital life? Quantum computers have existed at least for the last 10 years. Using 3 instead of 2 bit-states. Or maybe more. What is the connection between the idea or utility reality of quantum computing and so-called digital life?
In my opinion, it would be about time that the situation is re-examined and re-framed by philosophy. Quantum theory is fundamentally unable to explain underlying phenomena and therefore at most yields technocratic values. The idea of “a quantum world” is simply only true in the minds of mathematicians.
The fundamental root of structure formation in the cosmos could be viewed as the root of life and if that would be the case, ‘spin’ would be an empirical retro-perspective snapshot value for what otherwise is ‘intrinsic directionality’ or the root of both cosmic structure and life.
A clue to make this easy to understand is that spin is directly related to symmetry breaking or the ‘Why’ of existence.
Well-known philosopher Dr Philip Goff recently published a new book to make a case for cosmopsychism, or the idea that life is fundamental to cosmic structure formation. This appears to be a sort of new development in main stream philosophy.
At the fundamental level, the idea that electrons are particles is wrong. Electrons, protons and neutrons that together are said to compose atoms, are fundamentally defined by electric charge and they cannot exist independently.
In neutron stars and black holes, it isn’t the case that ‘no light escapes’. It is wrong to view these phenomena as entities and they do not have an internal structure, because they lack electric charge potential.
What is seen is that the intrinsic situation in both cases involves a reduction of ‘electric charge manifestation potential’ to zero (neutron without electron/proton in mathematics), with as a result that the situation becomes fundamentally non-directional and non-polar, and thus in a sense, non-existent.
What is said to exist in a black hole and neutron star is its external environment, and hence, in mathematics these situations result in a ‘singularity’ (a mathematical absurdness that involves a ‘potential infinity’).
It is the electric charge manifestation potential, or rather the absence of it, that fundamentally defines the situation of both neutron stars and black holes. This cosmic situation therefor can provide profound philosophical clues with regard the root of life and existence. Philosophy just has to step outside of the mathematical conceptualizations and reframe the situation.
The idea that a black hole is fundamentally defined by lack of electric charge, is a profound insight in my opinion. And when one delves deeper into the situation, it is seen that the underlying phenomenon of spin plays a key role.
Officially: “Spin is an intrinsic form of angular momentum carried by the mathematical particle concept.”.
This ‘intrinsic nature’ is philosophically highly interesting. It is an open door for philosophy that is given by scientists themselves.
The concept helicity or handedness links spin directly to ‘directional momentum’ and in that context it is either ‘anti’ aligned with momentum (-1), or ‘aligned’ (+1). This reveals that it rather involves a scope of infinite divisibility aligned with what must be ‘intrinsic directionality’. Quantum probability is an attempt to empirically frame what rather must be perceived as fundamentally aspirational in the context of pure directionality.
Helicity or handedness links the fundamental spin value in quantum measurements to the ‘intrinsic direction’ of motion, with motion in this context involving an unsubstantiated and unjustified assumption of existence within which the intrinsic directionality that the concept helicity fundamentally refers to, manifests as seen from an ‘empirical retro-perspective’. This retro perspective attempts to establish a causal technocratic value while fundamentally excluding the observer from that value. Therefore, at its core, from a philosophical perspective, the phenomenon that underlays the empirical concept helicity must be ‘directionality itself’.
Motion itself is not just an unjustified concept, but also fundamentally irrelevant for the intrinsic directionality phenomenon that is to be explained in the empirical observational context of spin + ‘directional’ motion.
So in my opinion, the situation could use philosophical investigation. And when it concerns quantum spintronics, or the idea that spin is used as a foundation for the direct result of computation, it might involve a situation in which this underlying directionality could manifest influence that could amount to “Digital Life Form”.
Just a peak inside this from outside, without technical expertise, that is, that the philosophy’s reformulation appears as if supported by and not supporting the reassesses here in described.
But it has been foreshadowed by the deconstructive failure of phenomenal attempts to directly attribute the state of molecular-atomic structure without allowing for energy-atomic loss, that could retain the sufficient powe to re-organize and re-form the same structural architecture,
The fact that the black box effect resembles the cat in the box earlier tests for quantum uncertainty, may not have visualized the loss of electron charge, as the quantum-cosmic relationship may not have yet surfaced into a doc, that could not yet have ascribed life in the box.
It was strictly a quantum effect, and if any hint of life may have been alluded to, it could have been through effective, not affective phenomena.( Saint James, affectively?)
So such shadows returning may echo the resonating physical demonstration of the use of indeterminate calculus of multiple invariences.
“A new development in science…” the idea that black holes, as per ancient wisdom, are rather a “Mother” of the Universe.
Evidence mounts that dark energy originates from black holes
Black Holes Could Be The Mysterious Force Expanding The Universe
It took me just a few hours in a few days to get to this, shortly before this news. I’ve created a new AI philosophical research system that I’ve now started to use.
After a few questions it became clear that when matter falls into a black hole, it will shrink in size. A black hole grows with ‘electric charge manifestation’ or cosmic structure growth.
Using philosophical logic and AI, it cost just a few steps to get to this conclusion.
Here’s a summary that I wrote this morning:
A fundamental assumption in astrophysics is that infalling matter increases black hole mass. However, despite extensive research being aimed at understanding black hole growth, and despite the common assumption that infalling matter leads to growth, not a single bit of evidence has been found for validity of the idea.
Scientists have been studying black hole evolution over a nine billion year period, particularly focusing on supermassive black holes at galactic centers. As it stands today in 2024, there’s no evidence showing that infalling matter leads to black hole growth.
Meanwhile, there is emerging evidence suggesting that black holes experience mass loss through unknown mechanisms.
A black hole and neutron star consist of an inherently electrically neutral context, which renders it a context of fundamental non-directionality, non-polarity and therewith non-existence.
In mathematics the context of a black hole results in a mathematical absurdity involving a potential infinity or singularity. Physicists recognize that the singularity predicted by general relativity marks a breakdown of the theory, as it indicates a regime where the laws of physics cease to apply.
When matter falls into a black hole or a neutron star, its mass will decrease rather than increase. And when galaxies or ‘the Universe’ grow cosmic structurally, the black hole mass will increase.
The mass of the black hole is derived from existence of the Universe as opposed to from an intrinsic nature or entity. The black hole context represents a context of non-existence.
After starting the exploration, it increasingly becomes clear that this situation concerns an open door for philosophy. Quantum theory is fundamentally flawed when it concerns the primary philosophical interest of understanding the nature of reality. Quantum theory yields technocratic values that can be ‘useful’ but that are fundamentally incapable of providing an understanding of the underlying phenomena.
So in my opinion, it IS philosophy’s job to question science’s claims.
Yes, it is philosophy’s job to do that. Science should never be confused with philosophy, which is to say that praxis, utility and technocratic values should never be confused with meaning.
.
I don’t understand the urgency to progress such cosmologically-derived phenomena like our lives depend on it, when they don’t.
…or is it simply the usual case of more funding-money to fund ‘a few’ others’ habits lifestyles and whims… the 99%, being bled dry, one non-issue cosmological project at a time.
.
There’s something to be said about the, prior, simplicity of life/living… the ‘age of technocracy’ has gone too far, in encroaching on our everyday lives and the quality of it.
I’m all for Science and the progression of it, but come on!
I agree! But beyond that, science is fundamentally dogmatic of nature (a creation of philosophy) and deviates from the original core philosophical interest that science intends to serve.
The argument has been that it’s philosophy’s job.
I recently commented the following in answer to a user who asked what philosophy is:
Topic: “What characterizes a philosopher?”
Me: A task of philosophy may be to explore passable roads in front of the tide.
gad-fly (author): Like a scout, pilot, or guide?
Me: Like an intellectual pioneer.
My argument in this topic was the following:
In my opinion, philosophical ‘common sense’ can discover at first sight the profound fallacious practice that has been going on when it concerns the attempt to understand the nature of reality, causing me to wonder whether that is done on purpose.
I wrote in this topic that common sense philosophical reason will easily reveal that a black hole should shrink when matter is electrically ‘nullified’ when it falls into a black hole, and that a black hole grows with cosmic structure formation which is represented by negative electric charge manifestation.
The Case for the Logical Primacy of Structure-Gravity Coupling in Cosmology
Despite the apparent logical connection between the growth of structure complexity and the disproportionate increase in gravitational effects, this perspective has not been widely embraced or even considered within the mainstream cosmological framework.
The evidence for this logical relationship is plainly observable across multiple scales of the physical world. From the atomic and molecular levels, where the mass of structures cannot be simply deduced from the sum of their constituent parts, to the cosmic scale, where the hierarchical formation of large-scale structures is accompanied by a dramatic increase in gravitational phenomena, the pattern is clear and consistent.
As the complexity of structures grows, the associated mass and gravitational effects exhibit an exponential, rather than linear, increase. This disproportionate growth of gravity cannot be merely a secondary or incidental consequence, but rather suggests a deep, intrinsic coupling between the processes of structure formation and the manifestation of gravitational phenomena.
Yet, despite the logical elegance and the observational support for this perspective, it remains largely overlooked or marginalized within the dominant cosmological theories and models. The scientific community has instead focused its attention on alternative frameworks, such as general relativity, dark matter, and dark energy, which do not necessarily prioritize the role of structure formation in the evolution of the universe.
This disconnect between the logical primacy of the structure-gravity coupling and its lack of consideration in the mainstream cosmological discourse is puzzling and warrants further examination. ← A job for philosophy. The failure to fully integrate this logical inference into the prevailing theories and models represents a significant gap in our understanding of the fundamental mechanisms shaping the cosmos.
For those interested to take on the challenge, another example of a simple ‘logical’ conclusion based on philosophical reason that is completely unaddressed by science, resulting in a profound inability to understand nature:
The Case for Positive Charge as Mathematical Fiction Representing Expectancy
The idea that positive charge is a mathematical fiction representing expectancy or potential for structure formation, rather than a fundamental physical entity, is largely unrecognized in contemporary physics. This lack of understanding stems from several factors:
Firstly, the conventional model of electric charge has been deeply ingrained in scientific thought for centuries. The concept of positive and negative charges as equal and opposite fundamental entities has been reinforced through countless experiments, theories, and technological applications. This entrenchment makes it challenging for alternative interpretations to gain traction, even if they might offer a more nuanced understanding of physical reality.
Secondly, the education system and academic literature predominantly focus on the established view of charge. Textbooks, research papers, and university courses rarely, if ever, present alternative philosophical interpretations of charge. This systemic reinforcement of the conventional model leaves little room for exploring or understanding alternative perspectives, regardless of their potential merit.
Furthermore, the scientific community often prioritizes ideas that offer immediate practical applications or testable predictions. The reinterpretation of positive charge as an abstraction, while philosophically intriguing, doesn’t immediately suggest new experiments or technological advancements. This lack of apparent practical consequence contributes to its obscurity and lack of understanding in mainstream physics.
However, despite this lack of recognition, there are compelling reasons why this alternative view might be considered more plausible than the idea of positive charge as a fundamental entity:
- Simplicity and elegance: Occam’s razor suggests that simpler explanations are often more likely to be correct. Treating only negative charge as fundamental and positive charge as an abstraction offers a more parsimonious model of reality.
- Alignment with information theory: The concept of positive charge as expectancy aligns well with principles of information theory, where absence of a signal can be as meaningful as its presence.
- Historical precedent: The concept of “holes” in semiconductor physics, where the absence of an electron is treated mathematically as a positive charge carrier, provides a precedent for this kind of abstraction.
- Philosophical coherence: This interpretation offers a more unified philosophical framework for understanding charge, structure, and the nature of physical reality.
Expectancy and Emergence:
Positive charge can be viewed as a placeholder for potential structure formation. It signifies areas or contexts where negative charge (and thus structure) could potentially manifest but has not yet done so.
Structure Formation Dynamics:
Negative charges (electrons) actively participate in bonding and structure formation. Positive “charges” represent regions where such structure formation is possible or expected but not yet realized.
Fractional Charges and Emergent Phenomena:
Phenomena like fractional charges in quantum Hall effects can be seen as emergent properties of electron interactions. These fractions are always relative to the fundamental unit of negative charge, supporting its primacy.
Historical Context:
The concept of positive charge originated before the discovery of the electron and subatomic structure. Reframing it as a mathematical construct aligns better with our current understanding of particle physics.
Philosophical Implications:
This perspective shifts focus from a dualistic view of charge to a monistic view centered on the electron. It emphasizes the role of absence and potential in physical theories, similar to concepts in Eastern philosophies.
*Despite these points of plausibility, the idea remains largely unexplored and ununderstood in the scientific community. *
The combination of entrenched conventional thinking, lack of exposure in education and literature, and the absence of immediate practical applications has kept this potentially more plausible interpretation of charge in the realm of obscure philosophical speculation rather than mainstream scientific discourse.
To sum it all up philosophically, and how it is relevant for practical human lives, is through ‘philosophical vision’.
Humans today are dreaming of escaping planet earth and to explore the cosmos, while in reality, they might be bound to a small region around the sun. When humans are correctly informed, they can set priorities and align culturally for the right interests.
The big cosmic questions do seem to relate to the smaller ones on earth, even when it concerns morality.
The above two examples reveal that for some reason the idea that black holes shrink with infalling matter, is simply ‘unexplored’ by science, as if they aren’t able to even think of the idea.
Equally, science (modern humanity with it), hadn’t considered the idea that life might be bound to a region around the sun.
Science today has neglected to test whether earth life can survive beyond the moon. A few simple philosophical questions would have made it a priority to test how far in space life can survive. But science for some reason has chosen to neglect it…
This ultimately is a responsibility of philosophy, since a few simple questions could have made it clear that life might be fundamentally bound to the solar system.
Here’s my article on the case:
I originally started an ‘amateur’ investigation of physics on the basis of the neutrino concept, based on the idea that the neutrino context is fundamental to existence and life. However, I came to realize that the whole mathematical framing of the situation is fundamentally flawed, and that these concepts cannot be used.
Nonetheless, would it be ethical for philosophy to say that what science has been doing is wrong, while using their work as a stepping stone for gathering deeper understanding? Perhaps not… It would be better when philosophy manages to keep its own pants up as it were, in my opinion.
Leibniz has been doing a great job, and it might be of interest to discover how he achieved his insights, that do seem to align to some extent to what is actually the case, despite his ‘deviation’ of making a case for God, which might have been required in his time.
Nonetheless the primary philosophical interest - to understand the fundamental nature of reality - might be considered a job that should have primacy. From that perspective, investigating the situation with urgency might be considered critical in light of philosophy’s responsibility to serve humanity.
escaping planet earth and to explore the cosmos, while in reality, they might be bound to a small region around the 
sun. When humans are correctly informed, they can set priorities and align culturally for the right interests.