Quantum artificial intelligence (“QAI”) is revolutionizing computing because it is not limited to the binary nature of conventional computer bits (which must have a value of zero or one), as quantum bits can be zero, one, or both simultaneously. Quantum materials effectively introduce superposition, which radically enhances computations. It is considered explosive for commercial purposes, with governments (China) and major corporations (Google) spending billions for first mover advantages. My objective with this short piece is to highlight that the philosophical implications could be similarly profound. The general observation is that the results and architecture of QAI shed light on classic rationalist claims. In fact, it is the commercial furor around cryptology with virtually immediate solutions that draws attention to Spinoza’s monism. More specifically, I suggest that the mechanics of accentuating AI, with the introduction of quantum uncertainty, can be viewed as a kind of Parallelism in practice, resurrecting his controversial doctrine. Reflecting Spinoza’s rejection of dualism and any interaction between mind and body, there is no causal relationship between the use of superposition and the revolutionary computational results.
First, as I draw affinities between Spinoza and QAI, I would like to frame Spinoza’s vision and, particularly, his thoroughgoing commitment to intelligibility. Characterizing his divine conception as a form of “absolute knowledge” is a good way to introduce comparisons with QAI. God has and is every idea. This notion of a single mind is also reflected in his oft-cited statement that a human mind is an idea in god’s intellect – effectively it is his idea of my body. To summarize his vision for these purposes, he views all things as fundamentally mental.
Perhaps Parmenides is the best other example of this phenomenological archetype, with his similar, radical monism. As highlighted in Michael Della Rocca’s excellent new book, The Parmenidean Ascent, it is an absolute version of monism that seeks to reject all distinctions. (A previous post in this series featured a conversation with Della Rocca about this book). Contrary to a more traditional understanding or relational demonstration of substance, being is wholly undifferentiated. There is no multiplicity of things. Loosely, it might be construed as akin to Heidegger’s Being, as well as Aquinas’s notion of pure actuality (Actus Purus). The upshot for these purposes is that, as Della Rocca notes, “reality is simply intelligibility or explanation itself”.
The centrality of intelligibility for Spinoza flows from the strict adherence to the Principle of Sufficient Reason (“PSR”). As Della Rocca lucidly describes in his Spinoza, first, there are no brute facts – literally everything has a cause. The PSR then takes on a second dimension or application, when causes are understood, become intelligible, or are explained.
Spinoza’s fundamental case for explicability leads to my points of comparison with QAI. The principal similarity relates to the most revolutionary aspect of nascent QAI, where solutions are nearly simultaneous. Cryptology is an initial commercial focus because QAI can solve problems that would otherwise take conventional computers millions of years. By virtue of harnessing quantum uncertainty, knowledge is effectively immediate with virtually simultaneous solutions. This bears a similarity to Spinoza’s commitment to intelligibility and divine vision, where understanding all causes or ideas at once amounts to absolute knowledge – where God has or is every idea.
My contention, however, is that we can carry the analogy further as we focus on the architecture or mechanics of QAI – effectively how the extraordinary initial results are generated. These nearly instantaneous computing solutions, attracting billions for research, are driven by quantum dynamics. QAI, relying on superposition where bits can be in two states at once, radically changes the way information is processed. I suggest that this relationship – quantum uncertainty revolutionizing computing – is uncorrelated in a manner consistent with Spinoza’s Parallelism. In essence, there is no causal relationship between the superposition and nearly immediate solutions. They are operating separately, without explanatory connections, similar to Spinoza’s view that mind and body are discreet as modes of one substance.
As Della Rocca details in Spinoza, ideas only have a causal relationship with other ideas. Similarly, modes of extension only enter causal relations with other modes of extension. There is no interaction between the mental and physical because there are no explanatory connections between them. Neither the mental nor the physical are reducible to the other. Rather, they are two ways of explaining the same thing. QAI can be construed as Parallelism in practice if AI and quantum materials, respectively, are viewed as proxies for the mind and body. Together they revolutionize computing, but there is no interaction between the quantum uncertainty and virtually immediate knowledge. The lack of causal relations mirrors Spinoza’s rejection of dualism and total separation of mind and body.
To be clear, I am not positing that QAI is a mind. It is still just a sophisticated series of channels for modulating the movement of electrons. The knowledge is with the humans interpreting the computer’s output. I am pushing the metaphorical envelope to suggest that the lack of correlation between superposition and radically enhanced computations deserves philosophical attention.
Technology explosively advancing with superposition recalls Einstein’s famous consternation with quantum physics: “god doesn’t play dice”. Chaos and randomness did not seem to fit the rational order of the universe. However, it’s becoming clearer that chance itself is at the heart of nature. Indeed, in this case, uncertainty unlocks radical potential for intelligibility.
We are only beginning to understand QAI’s properties and implications. In fact, quantum uncertainty revolutionizing computing – construed as Parallelism in practice – is just one example of how modern physics can inform our understanding of fundamental philosophical questions. In a later piece, I will expand this argument by analyzing how particle entanglement has led to a new theory of “non-locality” – leading to the incoherence of the very notion of space. Together, I believe they inform monist claims and, at a minimum, support a reconsideration of Spinoza’s strict rationalism.
Charlie Taben
Charlie Taben graduated from Middlebury College in 1983 with a BA in philosophy and has been a financial services executive for nearly 40 years. He studied at Harvard University during his junior year and says one of the highlights of his life was taking John Rawls’ class. Today, Charlie remains engaged with the discipline, focusing on Spinoza, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard and Schopenhauer. He also performs volunteer work for the Philosophical Society of England and is currently seeking to incorporate practical philosophical digital content into US corporate wellness programs. You can find Charlie on Twitter @gbglax.
Your blog is very informative.
Thanks very much Robert. I look forward to developing this argument in later pieces, exploring Spinoza’s Necessitarianism and concept of immortality.
Non-quantum ternary computers have excited for a long time (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ternary_computer). Emphasizing the base of the numbering system in your essay only misses the point.
Mr. Taben, you make a few compelling points, but you seem more interested in Spinoza than the way computers (especially quantum computers) actually work. I would gladly argue that the QAI you describe doesn’t exist, despite your apparent claims to the contrary.
Why do you suppose people working in quantum computing are sometimes critical of Haskell? I’d accept your expertise if you could give a clear answer to that question.
Thanks for your comment. Most importantly, please understand that I’m not purporting to be a technology/computer science/programming expert in any way. As you note, I am writing about Spinoza. This is one of several pieces where I will make the case that modern physics invigorates his strict rationalism. This series will also cover, inter alia, euthanasia and the politics of the Common Good.
I welcome your interest and input. In particular, your view on whether, even if I didn’t capture QAI correctly, its use and computing advances have philosophical implications. My final piece on this topic will explore simulation theory through a Spinozist lens. I will discuss a question I raised in the initial Q&A of this Blog – whether technology is part of nature? You sound knowledgeable, and hope you comment/expand! Thanks again
Charlie
Thank you Charlie for your kind reply. I apologize as perhaps my last question wasn’t entirely fair to you. Haskell is a language uniquely suited to quantum computing, although in some cases quantum computing introduces ambiguities in the otherwise powerful logic of the language.
Perhaps QAI – in theory if not in practice given the limits of contemporary technology – has some philosophic implications.
However, I wonder why a classical computer isn’t sufficient for your argument? A classical computer is a sophisticated series of channels for modulating electrons (interestingly, some promising quantum chip designs rely on protons rather than electrons – more of a fun fact than an objection). True, some quantum algorithms are nearly instantaneous, but the same can be said for some classical algorithms. For example, the euclidean distance between two points can be calculated in constant time – exactly as “nearly instantaneous” as any quantum algorithm as far as a computational theorist is concerned. Classical algorithms can even demonstrably solve problems in ways novel to the designer of the algorithm – to my knowledge this has not been demonstrated with a quantum computer.
Do quantum computers (and therefore “QAI”) rely on uncertainty? My understanding is that a quantum computer models a problem with a quantum system and then resolves the problem by collapsing (observing certain features of) the quantum system. The solution or set of solutions represented by the observed state as well as its unobserved components is real, certain, and correct. It may be useful to think of a qubit as being simultaneously true and false, but as far as I know the metaphysical case has yet to be convincingly made. I believe the problem of uncertainty is basically epistemological and fundamentally tied to measurement from the perspective of the average physicist.
Regardless, thank you for taking a moment to respond. Despite my objections I found this brief essay very provocative.
(One small typo in my last post: some quantum chips use photons, not protons)
Many thanks for your informative reply. I greatly appreciate the refined discussion of QAI. Your point about computing per se having the same import foreshadows my final piece on the Spinozist reading of the simulation argument. I believe that computing power, including our ability to create a simulation, raises the threshold, philosophical question. However the conclusion that it entails the possibility, if not probability, of living in one is the opposite of the correct take. I believe we should view technology as part of nature and therefore, in Spinozist terms, an end-in-itself. Not replicable, and, in fact, more than Sui Generis – necessary and divine (Deus sive Natura).
Thanks again for your kind reply and engagement. I look forward to continuing the dialogue!
Charlie
I must admit I’m not qualified to keep up with much of what is being discussed here, so I’ll shoot for a simpler observation that is within my reach.
Quantum computing will further accelerate the knowledge explosion, causing us to race at an ever faster speed towards the moment when the limits of human ability to manage such emerging powers is reached. The faster we go, the sooner we arrive at those limits.