
The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality - DeusExMachina
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160421-the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality
======
ikeboy
Previously:[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11588698](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11588698)

------
vkalan
I think this article stretches some terms and statements to say things that
sound reasonable, but aren't quite right. I noticed the pattern a few times:

1) Yes, QM talks about observations making a difference. But to say that
"objectivity results from the fact that you and I can measure the same object
in the exact same situation and get the same results — it’s very clear from
quantum mechanics that that idea has to go"? There's a lot of steps in between
where the work isn't shown.

2) Yes, scientists who ignore QM are using "300 year old physics". But somehow
mechanical engineers (and even electrical engineers) still manage to create
things that work without ever thinking about physics beyond 1900. There's
definitely an argument that could be made that brains need QM to be understood
- but again, it's not immediately obvious that this should be the case.

3)Yes, an organism that sees only "fitness" can outcompete one that sees
"reality". But that doesn't mean that there's no relationship between
"fitness" and "reality".

I think the main argument of this article is mostly a philosophical point
about consciousness and perception, and to be fair, that discussion is really
important! But I think there's a huge step missing between the science of QM
and the brain that's being discussed, and the conclusions that are being
drawn.

~~~
yourapostasy
To point 3, see Peter Watts novel Blindsight [1]. In it, he makes the case
that consciousness is not necessarily aligned with the fitness function;
that's curiously similar to the argument Hoffman makes that "correctly
perceiving reality" is not necessarily always an improvement upon the fitness
function.

However, from my admittedly layman's poor understanding of QM, his "conscious
agents all the way down" doesn't mesh with our current understanding of QM.
That is, I've not read anywhere that current QM theory and practice postulates
nothing exists until a conscious observer pays attention to it. Can someone
with a physics background please chime in on what Hoffman is referring to?

[1]
[http://www.rifters.com/real/Blindsight.htm](http://www.rifters.com/real/Blindsight.htm)

------
tsunamifury
My work lately has lead me to think there are two parts to the "self", the
intelligence and the simulation running around it within the brain. The
intelligence uses the senses to better augment the simulation to represent
external reality. Sometimes I think that leads us to believe that reality
isn't "real" but this is just the limit of our perceptual self. When our
internal simulation gets a bit off or were poke at its resolution too much we
notice the gaps, and this leads some people to erroneously declare their is no
reality when I think in fact they are just poking holes in their own cognitive
model. Ones flaws does not reject the others existence.

When you drill into this concept is goes a long ways in describing everything
from Platos cave to this guys hunches.

It also opens up some interesting possibilities that our intelligence could
but remote in some fashion while we still perceive ourselves within our
body... Or lots of other things.

All in all though I think our social nature is used to validate our internal
simulations. Just the fact that other intelligences are creating similar
models leads me to think there is an objective reality.

~~~
PeterWhittaker
Are you familiar with _Thinking, Fast and Slow_? It's late here, and I've had
a long day, so I will leave it as an exercise for you to lookup and learn how
there is considerable support for the idea that there are at least two parts
to each of us (not quite as you describe, but you may find this interesting).

~~~
tsunamifury
Actually I've spoken to Danny in person about his book, he lives down the
street. My final line about socializing to make our simulations more accurate
comes directly from a conversation with him.

------
tim333
> Suppose in reality there’s a resource, like water, and you can quantify how
> much of it there is in an objective order — very little water, medium amount
> of water, a lot of water. Now suppose your fitness function is linear, so a
> little water gives you a little fitness, medium water gives you medium
> fitness, and lots of water gives you lots of fitness — in that case, the
> organism that sees the truth about the water in the world can win, but only
> because the fitness function happens to align with the true structure in
> reality. Generically, in the real world, that will never be the case.
> Something much more natural is a bell curve — say, too little water you die
> of thirst, but too much water you drown, and only somewhere in between is
> good for survival. Now the fitness function doesn’t match the structure in
> the real world. And that’s enough to send truth to extinction.

My that seem like BS. I can't quite figure what on earth the argument is
supposed to be but too much or too little water being bad for you sending
"truth to extinction" just seems nonsense. Maybe it's some kind of late April
fools joke?

~~~
Retra
Here's the argument as far as I can tell:

"Assume your fitness function is correct. Now assume it doesn't match reality.
Therefore, your fitness function is incorrect, and thus fitness functions are
useless."

~~~
ricknew
> thus fitness functions are useless."

or perhaps: thus fitness functions should be taken seriously, but not
literally?

------
ricknew
Two points in the article that stand out for me are:

1\. it’s a logical flaw to think that if we have to take it seriously, we also
have to take it literally.

That literalness narrows us, keeps us in the confines of language. Seriousness
let's us act/respond, literalness is extra.

2\. The experiences of everyday life — my real feeling of a headache, my real
taste of chocolate — that really is the ultimate nature of reality.

Returning/remembering the sensual world, the everydayness of things, less
cluttered by our literal interpretation is a way of reconnecting with
"reality". It is a move away from metaphysics by questioning the metaphysics
we may hold without realizing it.

------
azeirah
Jesus, this crushed my beliefs. Philosophers arguing about "identity" are just
arguing about a knack of the human perception of the world. There is no such
thing as a thing.

Additionally, his answer to "But how can seeing a false reality be beneficial
to an organism’s survival?" makes me think. Entire complexes can be completely
meaningless to another. A piece of data, an arrangement of bits, is just that.
An arrangement of bits. It is only something to us. It is something to me, and
it is something else to you.

