"How do you even start a project that big?" Zac asked. "It's so abstract."
"Not really," I replied. "You just break the mission down into problems and subproblems. Let's imagine we are living in a computer game. Every human represents an AI bot, and all these AI bots are running around the game, doing their thing. I want to embark on an ambitious quest to upgrade every AI bot's operating system. So, what is the first step on the quest?"
"Err… I guess you need to write the operating system?" Zac guessed.
"Exactly. In this computer game, nearly every AI bot has Materialism OS installed in their consciousness. That's like playing a computer game where the majority of players don't know the rules. Everyone's running around and bumping into things, thinking that the game has no meaning or purpose. In fact, the game does have meaning and purpose, but we don't know how to play it! That's why progress is so slow, and suffering is so great. To upgrade our operating system, we need to figure out what the rules of the game are. What is happening in the underlying computation that generates everything we observe in the game world?"
"And that's the recursive algorithm?"
"Yes."
"But how do you know this algorithm is correct?" Zac asked. "You derived it from what 'God' said in a book. That's not very scientific."
"I just conceptually derived the last portion from what God said in a book. But remember — I already told you this is peer-reviewed, published science. A world-renowned neuroscientist has landed on the same algorithm to describe how conscious systems resist entropy."
"Did he derive his algorithm from Conversations With God, too?'"
"No. He developed it by empirically studying biological systems. So if you think I'm full of shit, then you also have to think that one of the top neuroscientists in the world is full of shit.
Earlier in the night, I created a deductive argument that proves the universe is a giant conscious system. I did that without postulating the existence of anything other than my own consciousness. I'm right about this by default unless someone can invalidate one of my premises."
First Lemma
Premise 1: I think, therefore I am.
Premise 2: Logical reasoning is the most effective method for determining the objective truth.
Conclusion: The observer is the observed.
Second Lemma
Premise 1: The observer is the observed.
Premise 2: The observer is a conscious system.
Conclusion: The universe is a conscious system.
Final Proof
Premise 1: The universe is a conscious system.
Premise 2: Conscious systems self-organize according to this algorithm.
Conclusion: The universe is self-organizing according to this algorithm.
"So," I said, "if the universe is a conscious system, and this neuroscientist's algorithm correctly describes how conscious systems function, then boom — that's the answer. The only way I'm wrong is if this neuroscientist is wrong, and I really don't think he is.
The scientific community has no idea what they're sitting on. They're not thinking clearly. I just want to help them connect the dots. When they eventually put two and two together, they can have a lot of fun testing this algorithm's predictions and confirming that it is the answer to life, the universe, and everything. But I'm not about to wait around for that to happen. As I said before — science moves at a snail's pace, and I've got a world to save. Besides, I'm advocating love as the answer. What could possibly go wrong with more love in the world?"
