Exploring the evolving relationship among science, philosophy and faith, I have previously attempted to recast Spinoza’s challenging doctrine of Parallelism, suggesting that quantum artificial intelligence invigorates Spinoza and represents a revolutionary advance with import for the discipline. This essay will expand the argument that modern science echoes a strict rationalism, including Spinoza’s participatory conception of immortality, characterized by an immediate intellectual knowledge of the mind’s eternity. Both are consistent with the latest theory of non-locality – where the notion of space itself is incoherent. Relativity changed the view of Newtonian space as a kind of container of material objects. The leading edge of physics now suggests that spacetime not only warps, but we are losing the ability to ascribe locations, with no definitive view about what is where.
To reinforce my case, I will conclude by assessing the modern “simulation argument” – that the rapid development of virtual reality, mapping of the brain, and our ability to create a simulation may entail that we are living in one. This provocative theory can be seen as a logical extreme of a radical form of monism consistent with non-locality, but is absolutely wrong about the nature of technology.
First, to understand the theory of non-locality, we need to trace the evolving conception of space that has led to the conundrum of nonlocal phenomena, contradicting the very concept of location. The change in our understanding begins with Kant, who presaged Einstein’s Relativity. Of course, Kant famously thought he solved the riddle of modern philosophy, practically limiting synthetic a priori knowledge to the mind’s framework. Space and time are not absolutes or things, but, rather, conditions to our perception – constructs ordering sensory data. Taking Kant literally, the mind creates a kind of unique dimension, imposing a form on nature. Years later, Einstein cemented this new, relative understanding of the world.
The foundation of Relativity that leads to the theory of non-locality is the terminal velocity of light and the resulting loss of simultaneity. Everything is relative to the observer and there isn’t one neutral standpoint or objective perspective. With nothing happening simultaneously, the concept of location loses meaning, and there is effectively no place to go.
Recent advances in modern physics have bolstered the view that the notion of space itself is incoherent. Particle entanglement, where paired particles act in unison at a distance, violates the principles of Relativity. As entanglement – “spooky action at a distance” – has been explored, we have learned that the workings of gravity generate additional nonlocal phenomena, which has led to a more comprehensive theory of non-locality. Spacetime positions have no intrinsic meaning because relational notions are themselves increasingly incoherent. The upshot is that there is actually no such thing as place or distance.
This counterintuitive hypothesis conflicts with the lure of the expanse of space and measuring scientific achievements by the consistency of laws applied to the scale of nature. In fact, we might learn no more from the movement of heavenly bodies than from sub-atomic particles. Indeed, with non-locality challenging the very notion of space, we should shift the emphasis for knowledge to the proximate and our experience of the world, or toward the phenomenological.
The philosophical archetype that aligns with this modern understanding of space is the strict monist conception highlighted at the beginning of this series with the exploration of Michael Della Rocca’s Parmenidean Ascent. In this extreme view, there are no distinctions or differentiation in space – no multiplicity of things, just a unitary god or nature. The notion of an uncompromising reality with no differentiated objects dovetails with the theory of non-locality where relations, distance and position lose meaning. Modern physicists essentially sound like strict rationalists, describing a world with no parts, consistent with a radical phenomenological vision.
This affinity can also be seen in Spinoza’s account of human immortality, where the highest form of knowledge is immediate, without regard to distance. In his parlance, God has and is every idea – a human mind is an idea in god’s intellect – effectively it is his idea of my body. This notion of a single, eternal mind is foundational to his temporal view of immortality. We do not live forever in the traditional sense, but, rather, experience eternal ideas in a resting state. As Clare Carlise outlines in Spinoza’s Religion, being-in-God is not a fluctuating, durational existence, but a participation in divine nature. To this extent, moving beyond space and time, Spinoza’s conception of immortality is a proximate form of the truth, and consistent with our evolving view of space itself.
The fact that non-locality echoes a strict monist view is one basis to entertain the modern simulation argument. Indeed, it has generated recent traction with David Chalmers’ new book on its possibility -expecting AI systems to be as sophisticated as humans, and likely to be conscious. Although not explicit, I contend that it takes the primacy of the ideal and phenomenological archetype to the extreme – suggesting that the world itself is an elaborate computer program. Specifically, the notion that we are living in simulation is based on the rapid development of virtual reality and mapping of the brain. The theory is founded on a religious faith in technology where we are digital beings living in a vast computer simulation. The argument is based on two premises. First, that consciousness can be simulated. Second, that advanced civilizations will have access to extraordinary amounts of computing power. The conclusion is that if you acknowledge our ability to create a simulation, it is possible, if not likely, that we are living in one.
The argument, then, gains credence given modern physics’ increasingly extreme theories about the nature of reality. It also correctly acknowledges the revolutionary nature of technology – which I share in viewing quantum artificial intelligence as a radical development with philosophical import. However, while appreciating the implications of technology, it is absolutely wrong about its nature. The simulation argument essentially renders the world replicable, effectively eliminating existence in a kind of absolute objective reality. In this extreme view, technology neuters subjectivity and meaning.
Following Spinoza’s Necessitarianism, I suggest that we should take the opposite position, and construe technology as part of nature. As nature itself, it should therefore be understood as necessary and sui generis. To this extent, by way of a Spinozist analogy, technology is best viewed as an attribute, an additional dimension of nature, similar to thought and extension. In this interpretation, the simulation argument is vital in appreciating the importance of technology, but creating a simulation does not entail that we are living in one. However, given revolutionary technological developments, the upshot is that people who are open to the simulation argument should also entertain a radical form of monism, reflected in both philosophy and religious theories.
The simulation argument’s consistency with a radical monist vision, that modern physics is now beginning to describe, foreshadows a convergence among science, philosophy and faith. Although science is fundamentally descriptive, it is unwittingly moving us closer to the realm of faith by describing a world without distinctions. The theory of non-locality echoes both a strict rationalism and, similarly, Aquinas’ conception of God as a pure act of being or actuality (Actus Purus).
To further assess the relationship between faith and philosophy, a future post will explore the question of the intellectual foundation of faith with Jacob Howland, author of Kierkegaard and Socrates: A Study in Philosophy and Faith. We will discuss whether modern science bears on this ancient question, as well as his central thesis, that philosophical eros opens up a path to faith.
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.
There exists in Pure Conceptuality a “stand alone” Prime Structural perspective and understanding which is coherent, correlative and comprehensive while addressing and resolving the concepts in this article. Simpler is not necessarily simplistic.. Unlearning is more difficult than learning..