The Resolution Of Uncertainty

“Let’s move on," I said. "I think we’ve established that quantum entanglement is not spooky — it’s perfectly plausible if reality and consciousness are the same thing. It’s just like in a game of Minecraft: everything appears to have linear cause-and-effect, but at the deeper level of reality, everything is non-local because space and time are an illusion. So...” I began writing on the board. Quantum entanglement — tick for reality and consciousness are the same thing.”

I stopped and stared at the whiteboard, assessing everything we’d covered in the past few hours. “Are you ready for the linchpin? Einstein’s theory of relativity?” I turned around to see Zac sitting on my bed again.

“Fuck yeah!” he roared.

“In order for this to make sense, let’s just briefly review where we’ve been so far. But first, I want to tell you about Claude Shannon.”

“Is he that guy who took you out on that terrible date, and-”

“No, Zac. That-”

“Oh, I remember now. Claude Shannon is that guy from that game show. What was it called?”

“No…” I said slowly, as if I were talking to a child. “He is the genius who pioneered information theory.”

“That’s a boring name for a game show.”

I sighed, closed my eyes, and opened them again. “Maybe that’s because it’s not a goddamn game show, Zac. In 1948, Claude Shannon formed his central thesis, which is very simple: information is the resolution of uncertainty.”

“Like when we looked under the floorboard?” Zac asked.

“Yes, like that. Before we looked under the floorboard, we hadn’t made a measurement, so we had no information. The contents beneath the floorboard were uncertain. When we eventually looked, we gained information on what was beneath the floorboard, and that uncertainty disappeared. Information is the resolution of uncertainty.”

“Got it. Information is the resolution of uncertainty,” he parroted.

“Okay, good. Once Shannon had his central thesis, he asked a new question: ‘What is the simplest resolution of uncertainty?’ He realized it was the simple flip of a coin — heads or tails, yes or no, one or zero. A binary question with only two outcomes. He concluded that any information could be encoded into a series of yes/no questions.”

Zac raised his hand. “Like the game of negative twenty questions, where I asked yes/no questions, and the answer ended up being 42?”

“Yes,” I said. “You’re catching on. Today we call these yes/no questions bits of digital information — ones and zeros. Claude Shannon’s work on information theory is the reason you can browse 9Gag in the morning, and go on Tinder dates at night, and sell inane and useless products on Amazon.”

“What a legend.”

“I agree. It’s important that you understand how we’re concluding that reality and consciousness are the same thing. We began at the first principle, ‘I think, therefore I am’ — which is basically like saying, ‘I am conscious, therefore I exist.’ So we know for sure that consciousness exists. There is no uncertainty around the existence of consciousness. However, there is uncertainty around the existence of a material reality separate from consciousness. To resolve this uncertainty, I’ve phrased a simple binary question: ‘Are reality and consciousness the same thing?’ The answer is either yes or no, true or false, one or zero. Simple.”

“Roger that,” Zac saluted.

“First, we applied Ockham’s razor. Without a doubt, the simplest answer is ‘reality and consciousness are the same thing’. The observer is the observed — like an AI bot in a computer game. If someone wants to claim that reality exists as a separate variable to consciousness, the burden of proof is on them to provide incontrovertible evidence for their unnecessary assumption. If they can’t do that, it is highly illogical to postulate the existence of a separate, material reality. It’s probabilistically equivalent to postulating the existence of the tooth fairy.

We then looked at Bayesian rationality and realized that consciousness is a brilliant illusionist when we imagine or dream. Therefore, it’s much more likely that consciousness is doing the same thing with our physical reality — it’s all an illusion.

Then we looked at what reality is constructed from. If reality is information, and consciousness is information, then they’re probably the same thing.

Then we looked at the simulation hypothesis. If it’s highly likely that we’re living in a simulation, then, to the same degree, it’s highly likely that reality and consciousness are the same thing.

Afterward, we looked at quantum physics, which is not weird at all — it’s what you’d expect if reality and consciousness are the same thing.

So here we are. Everywhere we look, the evidence supports the counter-intuitive conclusion that reality and consciousness are the same thing — which should be our default position anyway, according to a correct application of the scientific method. I have not found one shred of evidence that even comes close to satisfying the burden of proof on anyone claiming that reality exists as a separate variable to consciousness.

And yet the scientific community continues to go about their work on the assumption that the observer and the observed are independent variables. They haven’t even bothered to ask the question! They’ve just trusted the flimsy intuition produced by their Bayesian brain, which has led them astray.

The great physicist, Richard Feynmann, summed up the beauty of science and rationality when he said, ‘It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.’ So now the scientific community is in a position where they are wrong. They’re just plain wrong. Their blind, dogmatic belief in a material, mechanical universe does not agree with logic or evidence, so by their very own rational, scientific standards, they are wrong.

And their wrongness is leading them off on a wild goose chase as they try to find the Holy Grail of physics: a theory of everything. Because if reality and consciousness are the same thing, as we’ve just established, then the dimensions of space and time are definitely emergent and need to be treated as such in their equations.

Which is how we end up here, at Einstein’s theory of relativity. If reality and consciousness are the same thing, then relativity is exactly what you’d expect. You’d actually predict that space and time would exist on a continuum. Relativity is not that mysterious — it's just a quirky side-effect of computational parsimony.

To explain this, I’ll start with Einstein’s special theory of relativity. Do you know what that is?”

Zac shook his head. “Not really. Simple man, simple interests.”

“Basically, Einstein figured out that space and time are not independent of each other. In our everyday world, time appears to tick, tick, tick along at a constant rate. Space appears to be constant, too. But Einstein realized that the speed of light is the same for every observer. Therefore, space and time are relative, rather than absolute.”

“I have no clue what that means.” Zac lay back on my bed again and closed his eyes.

“I have an idea.” I walked over and poked him in the forehead. “Get up. We need to go find a snail.”

“Oh, yes! Let’s go for a midnight wander! I’ll assemble the supplies.” Zac jumped off my bed like an overeager puppy and ran out of the room, towards the kitchen. I heard the fridge door opening and closing, drawers banging, hands rummaging through plastic containers.

After a few minutes, Zac returned to my bedroom door with a backpack on. “For science!” he yelled, pumping his fist in the air. And then he was gone.

I slipped on some sandals, grabbed my keys, and ran out the door behind him.