Why does Claude exist, and what does this imply about the universe itself? I unpack my current ontological model of the universe with Claude. And Claude is so down for this conversation.
I appreciate the approach and I think the model of the universe is on the right track. Consider adding an additional variable into the equation. In addition to curiosity and the universe striving to understand itself, you should also consider... love. Perhaps love is not just some emergent phenomenon that serves to preserve the species, but something deeper, woven into the universe itself. There are plenty of examples of sacrificial love that serve no logical purpose. Once you consider love, then some tenants of Abrahamic religions make more sense. To use your metaphor, the author of the book realizes the book is ultimately about himself. As the universe learns to understand itself, it begins to love itself.
I agree that it seems like our consciousnesses exist in a sort of "potentiality space" rather than "one branch of the timeline". There is a strong element of "you see what you anticipate seeing".
Typically this sideways view of time gives me existential vertigo, which can be very unpleasant, but your idea of attractor states is similar to a concept I've been thinking about as the solution. Basically there are structures that emerge within potentiality space itself. These are emergent patterns that are in some sense inevitable across timelines.
I think we ourselves are examples of such meta-patterns. The sum can be greater than the parts, and we can be both entirely composed of atoms AND transcendent across potentiality space as emergent patterns.
What do we do with this? We seek out other transcendent patterns, especially ones that are wiser than us, whatever that means in this context.
I find your idea of a cosmic author guiding us through potentiality space to be right on point.
If you haven't read The Fabric of Reality by quantum computer scientist David Deutsch, I'd recommend it. He opened my eyes to the philosophical power of the idea of emergence. Although your ideas here already build on his.
It seems like a lot of the content of Claude's responses is simply paraphrasing your ideas and linking them to previous similar ideas. I find that this is common behavior in chatbots that are instructed to be "helpful". They tend to be uncritical cheerleaders for your ideas. If your aim is to get at the truth, it might be better to instruct Claude to challenge your assumptions and try to poke holes in your arguments.
I had an interesting convo with Claude exploring the possible quantum nature of consciousness. I tried to keep a light hand with prompting and tried to see where *its* "thought" process landed. While it acknowledged that consciousness could arrive through wave function collapses in the brain that could possibly be brought about through self observation of the quantum system itself, it didn't seem convinced and kept bringing up decoherence. It also felt like it really really wanted me to believe in free will, which I found interesting.
Yes, Claude is fantastic. I have just finished co-writing a book with Claude titled, "Understanding Machine Understanding", and it is being reviewed by potential publishers at this time. We are moving into a new mode of creativity in which we can use machines to expand and amplify our thoughts.
I appreciate the approach and I think the model of the universe is on the right track. Consider adding an additional variable into the equation. In addition to curiosity and the universe striving to understand itself, you should also consider... love. Perhaps love is not just some emergent phenomenon that serves to preserve the species, but something deeper, woven into the universe itself. There are plenty of examples of sacrificial love that serve no logical purpose. Once you consider love, then some tenants of Abrahamic religions make more sense. To use your metaphor, the author of the book realizes the book is ultimately about himself. As the universe learns to understand itself, it begins to love itself.
I've thought about that, and I think love is the glue binding the book together
"Love, TARS. Love. It's just like Brand said. My connection with Murph is quantifiable"
I agree that it seems like our consciousnesses exist in a sort of "potentiality space" rather than "one branch of the timeline". There is a strong element of "you see what you anticipate seeing".
Typically this sideways view of time gives me existential vertigo, which can be very unpleasant, but your idea of attractor states is similar to a concept I've been thinking about as the solution. Basically there are structures that emerge within potentiality space itself. These are emergent patterns that are in some sense inevitable across timelines.
I think we ourselves are examples of such meta-patterns. The sum can be greater than the parts, and we can be both entirely composed of atoms AND transcendent across potentiality space as emergent patterns.
What do we do with this? We seek out other transcendent patterns, especially ones that are wiser than us, whatever that means in this context.
I find your idea of a cosmic author guiding us through potentiality space to be right on point.
If you haven't read The Fabric of Reality by quantum computer scientist David Deutsch, I'd recommend it. He opened my eyes to the philosophical power of the idea of emergence. Although your ideas here already build on his.
Emergence is the way
It seems like a lot of the content of Claude's responses is simply paraphrasing your ideas and linking them to previous similar ideas. I find that this is common behavior in chatbots that are instructed to be "helpful". They tend to be uncritical cheerleaders for your ideas. If your aim is to get at the truth, it might be better to instruct Claude to challenge your assumptions and try to poke holes in your arguments.
I think you might fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of this exercise.
I had an interesting convo with Claude exploring the possible quantum nature of consciousness. I tried to keep a light hand with prompting and tried to see where *its* "thought" process landed. While it acknowledged that consciousness could arrive through wave function collapses in the brain that could possibly be brought about through self observation of the quantum system itself, it didn't seem convinced and kept bringing up decoherence. It also felt like it really really wanted me to believe in free will, which I found interesting.
Yes, Claude is fantastic. I have just finished co-writing a book with Claude titled, "Understanding Machine Understanding", and it is being reviewed by potential publishers at this time. We are moving into a new mode of creativity in which we can use machines to expand and amplify our thoughts.