text:
# 1 Background

## 1 Background

> \[Einstein\] told us once: ‘Life is finite. Time is infinite. The probability that I am alive today is zero. In spite of this, I am now alive. Now how is that?’ None of his students had an answer. After a pause, Einstein said, ‘Well, after the fact, one should not ask for probabilities.’

In the above quote Einstein presages a currently much-debated application of anthropic reasoning called the doomsday argument. The argument itself was first conceived by Brandon Carter in the early 1980s and subsequently published by John Leslie and Richard Gott. In essence one imagines a chronologically ordered list of all the human beings who will ever live and then asks where one expects to be along that list. Now the argument goes that, a priori, one should expect to be a “non-special” member of the human race. Thus, in terms of one’s position in the list, one should not expect to be among those few humans at the beginning or end, but rather with the majority around the middle of the list. This is basically an application of the “Copernican principle” to our temporal position along the lifetime of the human race. Given this assumption, and an estimate of one’s position from the beginning of the list, one can use the argument to predict the total number of humans who will ever be born. By estimating how long it will take for the extra births to occur, it is then possible to make a prediction of the total lifetime of the human race.

Now the above argument depends crucially on an application of the “principle of indifference” to one’s position within the human race. Let us imagine a list of arbitrary labels representing every human who will ever live, in order of birth date. One could state that the principle of indifference immediately implies that one’s label is equally likely to be located at any position within that list. This assumption has been criticized by Korb & Oliver and more recently by Sowers. These authors believe that only some random sampling procedure (like picking balls from an urn) could ensure such a uniform probability distribution. However I contend that this criticism is based on an incorrect application of the principle of indifference. Instead, given such a list, the principle implies that one is equally likely to be represented by any of the labels in that list. The uniform probability distribution for one’s location then follows from the fact that each label has a unique position associated with it. In Section 4, I derive this principle of indifference distribution by reasoning about the ensemble of humans who might find themselves at any given position within the human race.

It is the premise of this paper that the chink in the doomsday prediction’s armour resides not in the uniform likelihood for one’s position per se but rather in its extension to the case of an unending human race. As pointed out in the above quote, it is impossible to extend a uniform probability distribution over an infinite ensemble of possibilities. If one attempts to do so one obtains the nonsense answer that there is a zero prior probability of finding oneself at any given position within the human race. Now although one might question whether an unending human race is physically possible one must surely concede that it is at least logically possible. Thus I believe that any valid doomsday-type reasoning must be able to handle the case of an infinite ensemble of human beings without leading to absurdity. It has been argued (Leslie, Bostrom private communications) that a uniform probability distribution can be applied to the limiting case of an infinite human race by assuming an infinitesimal probability of finding oneself at any position within such an ensemble. This is, however, mathematically untenable because infinitesimal probabilities can only be defined over continuous sets whereas the set of human beings is discrete.

Thus we are left with the problem of how to apply a uniform prior probability distribution for our birth position to the case of an infinite human race. Now one approach, following Einstein, is to assert that because we already know our position in the human race we can no longer reason about the prior probability that we should have found ourselves at that position. A similar point was made by Dyson in his review of Leslie’s book The End of the World. To me this statement seems to deny the possibility of any type of Bayesian reasoning at all. Following Rev. Bayes’s prescription one’s prior probabilities should be updated to posterior probabilities conditional on learning any new piece of data. The applicability of this rule surely does not depend on the time at which it is applied. The fact that one is not around to formulate prior probabilities before one is born surely does not preclude one from formulating such probabilities after one’s birth and then conditionalizing this knowledge with one’s measured position within the human race. An instructive way of approaching this problem is to ask how much information one gains on finding one’s birth position within the human race. Now it seems an undeniable fact that one does gain a certain amount of information on measuring one’s birth position n. Given that the amount of information gained depends on one’s prior probability for the value of n, this implies that prior probabilities for one’s birth position must exist even though one was not around to reason about them before one’s birth.

## 2 Introduction

In this paper I investigate the doomsday argument in terms of information in an attempt to understand how the reasoning used in the case of a finite ensemble can be carried over to the problematic infinite case. I start, in Section 3, by deriving the doomsday prediction for a finite population size. In doing so I note an important difference between Leslie’s and Gott’s formulation of the argument. In Leslie’s formulation the prior probability is left unspecified so that the doomsday argument is seen to consist solely of the change in one’s beliefs on learning of one’s position in the human race. In Gott’s formulation, however, a specific prior is used that represents our complete prior ignorance of the total lifetime of the human race. I argue that Leslie’s formulation fails due to a reason first suggested by Dieks, and further developed by Kopf, Krtous and Page, Bartha and Hitchcock and in particular Olum. The problem is that if one uses any prior, other than the “vague” prior suggested by Gott, one finds that the doomsday shift in probabilities is cancelled out by the effect of the increased likelihood of being born in a large population.

Having derived the doomsday prediction in terms of the human race, I apply doomsday reasoning to the lifetime of a single conscious observer. This might seem like a rather bold abstraction but I believe that the situation is entirely analogous to that of the human race and brings out the previously under-reported role that conscious awareness plays in the doomsday argument. The only difference between the classic doomsday scenario and the application of doomsday reasoning to the lifetime of an observer is that in the former case one imagines a chronologically ordered list of human beings whereas in the latter case one pictures a sequence of the observer’s “moments” of consciousness (see Bostrom for the related proposal of “observer-moments”). Following Gott, we regard the doomsday argument as ab initio reasoning so that we ignore any prior statistical information we have about the lifetimes of actual human observers.

In Section 4, I argue that, on consciously “finding” himself in his current moment, the observer gains information about the ensemble of conscious moments that make up his lifetime. Now I realize that the term “consciousness” can be defined in a number of ways. In this paper the term refers solely to the basic act of awareness of something. By actually having some determinate experience an event takes place that can be labelled with a unique time. I contend that the associated perception of “now”, the current moment, is a fundamental aspect of consciousness shared by all conscious beings. By demonstrating that the amount of information that an observer gains on finding himself in his current moment does not depend on the location of that moment, I derive the principle of indifference result that, a priori, one is equally likely to be in any moment along one’s lifetime. In Section 5, I attempt to apply this reasoning to the case of an infinite lifetime. I find that, on the one hand, in discovering his current moment out of an infinite ensemble of moments, the observer should gain an infinite amount of information. But, on the other hand, I argue that such a state of affairs is not logically possible. Thus I conclude that an infinite conscious lifetime is not possible in principle.

Now, in Section 6, I argue that this result has profound implications. I consider the hypothetical case of a classical computer that, by running a particular program, experiences conscious awareness as a “by-product” of its operation. Now by the doomsday result above such a program must only generate a finite sequence of conscious moments. But I argue that if a program exists that allows a computer to generate a finite sequence of conscious moments then there seems no reason why the same program cannot be modified to generate an infinite sequence of moments. I conclude that the only way out of this impasse is to deny that a classical computer can experience consciousness in the first place. This statement is equivalent to asserting that consciousness cannot be generated by a set of deterministic laws. Now, given that we ourselves are conscious, this result implies that our brains must operate, at least partly, in a non-deterministic manner.

In an effort to understand this non-determinism further I postulate that it is equivalent to asserting that conscious awareness is generated by many different sets of deterministic laws operating simultaneously. In Section 7, I argue that such a conception of reality is implied by the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics in which time is no longer linear but instead has a branching structure. In Section 8, I hypothesize that in order to modify the doomsday argument to accommodate this scenario one simply needs to lift the assumption, implicit in the Bayesian probability calculation, that the observer’s present moment is associated with only one future with some definite total number of conscious moments. By assuming instead that the present moment is associated with an ensemble of many actually occurring futures, weighted by Gott’s prior function, I find that the doomsday argument fails to make any prediction about which future the observer will experience. Thus I conclude that the very fact of our consciousness can only be explained within a many-worlds ontology. Moreover, when the doomsday argument is generalized to take such a view of reality into account, it fails to make any predictions about the future.

## 3 The Doomsday Prediction

As conventionally applied, the doomsday argument purports to predict the total size of the human race, N, given one’s birth position, n, within it. In doing so one implicitly makes the assumption that one’s present position is associated with one unknown, but finite, future total population size. One first imagines a finite chronologically ordered list of labels representing all the humans who will ever be born. Next one argues that, a priori, one is equally likely to be represented by any one of those labels. Now, as pointed out in Section 2, this is an application of the principle of indifference. I show in the next section that this crucial assumption can be derived by reasoning about the symmetry properties of the probability of finding oneself at any given position. One proceeds by considering an ensemble of N hypotheses, each one specifying that a different human is located at that position. The fact that all the hypotheses are completely equivalent implies that each should be assigned the same prior probability. Thus the prior likelihood that one should find oneself at any position n, given that there will be a total of N humans altogether, $`P(nN)`$, is $`1/N`$. Now this derivation of the principle of indifference suggests that it is in the act of consciously perceiving one’s present moment that one gains information rather than from learning one’s birth position per se. Even before learning of one’s birth position, one can argue that the very fact that one is alive at this particular time differentiates one, in principle, from all the other humans. The prior likelihood of this event, regardless of one’s birth position, is $`1/N`$. Thus, as mentioned in the previous section, the doomsday argument is intimately linked with the phenomenon of conscious awareness.

Now the doomsday argument uses Bayesian probability theory to provide its prediction of the total population size, N, given one’s birth position n. One considers a set of exclusive hypotheses for N and then calculates how one’s prior probabilities for these hypotheses change on learning one’s position n. Let us start our derivation of the doomsday prediction by considering two equivalent expressions for the combined probability of n and N, $`P(nN)`$, given by

$$P(nN)=P(Nn)P(n)=P(nN)P(N).$$

This expression can be rearranged to give Bayes’s theorem

$$P(Nn)=\frac{P(nN)P(N)}{P(n)},$$

where $`P(Nn)`$ is the posterior probability of a total population size N given that one finds oneself born at position n, $`P(nN)`$ is the likelihood of finding oneself at position n given a total population size N, and $`P(n)`$, $`P(N)`$ are the prior probabilities of n and N respectively. We have shown already that $`P(nN)`$, the likelihood of finding oneself at birth position n given that there will be N births altogether, is given by the principle of indifference so that we have

$$P(nN)=\frac{1}{N}.$$

In order to use Bayes’s theorem to calculate $`P(Nn)`$, the posterior probability of a total population size N, given our birth position n, we also need some prior probability distribution for N, $`P(N)`$. Now, as noted in Section 2, a number of authors, such as Leslie and Bostrom, regard the doomsday argument as depending solely on the shift of probabilities induced by the likelihood $`P(nN)=1/N`$ regardless of the form of the prior $`P(N)`$. This position has been shown to be untenable by a number of other authors, most recently Olum. He reasoned that the data inherent in finding oneself at some position within the human race comprises not simply the information that you are located at that position but also that you were actually born in the first place. Thus the likelihood that one should use in Bayes’s theorem is $`P(nBN)`$, the probability of both finding oneself born and located at position n within a population of size N, given by

$$P(nBN)=P(nB,N)P(BN),$$

where $`P(BN)`$ is the probability of being born anywhere in a population of size N and $`P(nB,N)`$ is the probability of finding oneself at position n given that one has been born into a population of size N. By assuming that $`P(nBN)=P(nN)`$, Leslie and Bostrom make the implicit prior assumption that one is certain to be born somewhere within the population. Let us see the effect of lifting this restriction. We start by assuming any normalizable prior for N, $`P(N)`$. Given such a prior $`P(N)`$ there must exist some length scale L such that the probability that N is less than L, $`P(N<L)`$, is larger than any given confidence limit. On the assumption of a set of all possible humans, of size L, one can argue that the probability, $`P(BN)`$, of being a member of the subset of actual humans, of size N, is given by

$$P(BN)=\frac{N}{L}.$$

Thus the larger the population size the more chance one has of being born. When one combines this result with the principle of indifference expression for the original doomsday likelihood, $`P(nB,N)=1/N`$, one finds that

$$P(nBN)=\frac{1}{N}\frac{N}{L}.$$

The two contributions to the overall likelihood of being born at position n cancel each other out. Thus as soon as one considers any particular normalizable prior $`P(N)`$ the doomsday shift in one’s posterior for N given n, $`P(Nn)`$, disappears.

Olum argued that this fact demolishes the doomsday argument but in fact there is one prior that is immune to the above reasoning. This prior is the so-called vague prior $`P(N)=1/N`$, first described by Jeffreys, which has been extensively used to represent complete prior ignorance of a scale variable (e.g. Hesselbo and Stinchcombe). In order to sketch a justification for this prior we note that, according to algorithmic information theory, the intrinsic probability of any binary string is defined by the smallest program that will generate that string. Now the size of such a program must be less than the length of the string itself. Thus the program required to specify the binary representation of N must be less than approximately $`\mathrm{log}_2N`$ bits in length. This implies that the intrinsic probability of N, $`P(N)`$, must be greater than $`1/N`$. Thus the vague prior is not so much a probability distribution but rather a “template” for a distribution. Now, as this prior is scaleless (it is invariant under a change of scale) and non-normalizable, no scale L exists that allows one to argue that $`P(BN)=N/L`$. This implies that one cannot argue that the probability of being born is proportional to the size of the population and so consequently there is no factor of N to cancel out the principle of indifference term $`P(nB,N)=1/N`$.

Gott’s Bayesian formulation of the doomsday argument survives
Olum’s attack because it implicitly assumes that we have no prior knowledge about N so that we should represent our knowledge with the vague prior. Let us return to our original Bayesian formulation for the posterior for N given n, $`P(Nn)`$, given by

$$P(Nn)=\frac{P(nN)P(N)}{P(n)}.$$

Assuming the vague priors $`P(N)=1/N`$ and $`P(n)=1/n`$, together with the doomsday likelihood $`P(nN)=1/N`$, we find that

$$P(Nn)=\frac{n}{N^2}.$$

This posterior is a perfectly proper probability distribution and represents real knowledge about N even though we started with a prior that was not normalizable. By integrating the above expression one can calculate the probability that N is less than some limit M, $`P(N<M)`$, as

$$P(N<M)=1\frac{n}{M}.$$

By substituting $`M=10n`$ in the above expression, one derives a standard doomsday prediction to the effect that there is a 90% probability that the total size of the human race, N, will be less than ten times the number of humans who have been born so far.

## 4 Derivation of the Principle of Indifference

As mentioned in the previous section, the doomsday argument relies crucially on the principle of indifference applied to one’s position within the human race. This implies that, given a finite list of all the humans who will ever live, and assuming no other prior knowledge, one assumes that one is equally likely to be anywhere within that list. As described previously, the principle of indifference can be derived by considering the ensemble of humans who could “find” themselves at a given position within the list. I contend that, in the very act of consciously perceiving “now”, one gains information about the ensemble of human beings. In this section we use symmetry principles and an information theory approach to derive the principle of indifference in the context of a single conscious observer.

Let us assume that the observer is equipped with a clock and that his conscious experience lasts for N intervals of time. We term each interval of consciousness a “moment” so that the observer’s awareness is discretized into a time-ordered sequence of N conscious moments. One starts by considering the amount of information that the observer gains on finding himself in his current conscious moment. The amount of information he gains depends on his initial knowledge of the situation. We assume that his prior knowledge consists solely of the assumption that he will experience a total of N conscious moments altogether. Let us suppose that, while in his current conscious moment, and before he has noted the time, the observer considers some particular time interval n. He reasons that either his current moment is located in interval n or one of the other conscious moments is located in that interval. As the observer knows nothing more about these N possibilities, I assert that his prior knowledge must simply be represented by a list of N arbitrary labels, each one representing a conscious moment that might be located in interval n.

Now the observer considers the conscious moment that is actually located in interval n. He assigns $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ to be the probabilities that the label C, representing this moment, is in the first and second half of the list respectively. Let us assume that the observer swaps the two halves of the list over. He assigns $`p_1^{}`$ and $`p_2^{}`$ be the probabilities that the label C is in the first and second half of the resulting list. This second list of labels represents the observer’s initial knowledge just as adequately as the first one. The prior probabilities for the position of label C depend entirely on the observer’s initial knowledge which in turn is represented by an arbitrarily ordered list of labels. As a transposition of an arbitrary list is also an arbitrary list then both represent the same knowledge which in turn implies that the two sets of probabilities must be identical so that we have

$$p_1^{}=p_1\text{ and }p_2^{}=p_2.$$

Now the observer also knows that the probability that label C is in a set of labels should “travel” with that set of labels in the transposition operation. Thus in order to maintain consistency between the two sets of probabilities it must also be the case that

$$p_1^{}=p_2\text{ and }p_2^{}=p_1.$$

Combining these two sets of equations we find that

$$p_1^{}=p_2^{}\text{ and }p_1=p_2.$$

Thus the observer must assign equal prior probabilities to label C being in either half of an arbitrary list of labels. This implies that, on learning in which half of an arbitrary list label C resides, the observer gains precisely one bit of information. Now this reasoning can be applied again to a list comprising the half of the original list that contained label C. The observer will again assign equal probabilities to label C being in either half of this new list. On learning which half contains label C the observer will gain another bit of information. In general, starting with an arbitrarily ordered list of N labels, this process must be repeated $`\mathrm{log}_2N`$ times in order to specify a particular label uniquely.

Now let us suppose that, on consulting the clock, the observer finds that his current conscious moment is actually located in time interval n. This is equivalent to his current moment being specified uniquely from amongst an arbitrarily ordered ensemble of N conscious moments that could have found themselves in interval n. Thus, in finding himself in interval n, the observer gains $`\mathrm{log}_2N`$ bits of information. As each bit is equivalent to a probability factor of $`1/2`$, this implies that $`P(nN)`$, the prior probability that the observer finds himself in any interval n conditional on there being N conscious moments altogether, is given by

$$P(nN)=\frac{1}{N}.$$

This is the well-known principle of indifference but here it has been derived in a rigorous manner following the symmetry arguments of Jaynes.

## 5 The Infinite Lifetime Paradox

Now, as mentioned in Section 3, in following the doomsday argument one makes the implicit assumption that the human race will be finite in size. Accordingly, in the previous section, we derived the principle of indifference by considering the case of a single observer experiencing a finite conscious lifetime. We now wish to examine the case in which the observer experiences a countable infinity of conscious moments. Although this scenario might seem physically infeasible there is no reason why we should not consider it in principle. In fact, as pointed out in Section 1, as soon as one tries to apply the principle of indifference to such a case one comes up against the problem of extending a uniform probability distribution over an infinite ensemble of possibilities.

In order to investigate this problem further we shall attempt to extend the reasoning we used in the previous section to the case of an infinite conscious lifetime. As in the case of a finite lifetime, let us consider the ensemble of conscious moments that might be located in the time interval n. Again, as the observer knows nothing more about these moments he can only represent them by an infinite set of arbitrary labels. Now in the case of the finite ensemble, as described in the previous section, the observer considered the labels arranged in an ordered list. This situation implies a one-to-one mapping between each label and each integer from 1 to N. In order to reason about an infinite ensemble we shall assume instead that the observer’s initial knowledge is represented by an arbitrary one-to-one mapping between each label and each rational number in the interval $`(0,1]`$. This is feasible because such rational numbers form a countably infinite set.

Now, as before, the observer considers the conscious moment that is actually located in interval n. The label C, representing this moment, is mapped to a rational number in either the first or second half of the interval $`(0,1]`$. As in the case of the finite list of labels we can imagine a transposition of the mapping such that all labels that were mapped to rationals in $`(0,1/2]`$ are now mapped to rationals in $`(1/2,1]`$ and vice-versa. Again both mappings represent the observer’s initial knowledge equally well so that he should use the same probability distribution for the position of label C under both mappings. Combining the need for consistency between the probability distributions with the above symmetry requirement leads the observer to reason that label C is equally likely to be mapped to either half of the interval $`(0,1]`$. This again implies that, on learning to which half of the interval $`(0,1]`$ label C is mapped, the observer gains one bit of information. As in the finite case, the above reasoning can be reapplied to the half of the interval that contains the rational number mapped to label C. On learning in which half of this new interval label C resides the observer gains another bit of information. Now one can see that in contrast to the case of a finite list the above process does not terminate.

Let us assume that the observer actually does find himself in some finite time interval n given the assumption that an infinite ensemble of conscious moments will eventually exist, any one of which might have been located in that time interval. As argued above, this situation is equivalent to indicating a rational number in the interval $`(0,1]`$ by specifying whether the number is in the first or second half of a sequence of successively smaller intervals. The amount of information that the observer would gain from his perception of his current moment, in such circumstances, must be larger than any finite number of bits. This seems to imply that, in the act of finding himself at some point within an infinite conscious lifetime, the observer gains an infinite number of bits of information.

This situation seems reminiscent of one of Zeno’s paradoxes of motion in which a runner travelling from A to B has first to cover half the distance between the two points. But in order to cover this half-distance he has to first travel half of the half-distance and so on. Zeno’s problem is generally not regarded as a paradox nowadays because it is known that an infinite sum of exponentially decreasing lengths does actually converge to a finite distance. However it is my contention that one does run into a paradox when one considers the observer’s perception of his current moment of consciousness within an infinite ensemble of such moments. As shown earlier such a moment would require an infinite-sized bitstring to specify it from within the countably infinite set of conscious moments. The paradox arises because there are in fact infinitely more infinite-sized binary strings than there are countable conscious moments.

One can see that the set of infinite-sized binary strings is at least larger than any countable set by using Cantor’s diagonal slash argument. This involves first assuming the contrary position, namely that it is possible to uniquely assign each infinite-sized binary string to each successive integer. Now given such a list of binary strings it is possible to construct a new binary string that differs from the first string in the first binary digit, the second string in the second binary digit and so on. This new binary string cannot be anywhere in the original list and so we have shown that there is at least one more infinite-sized binary string than there are integers. Now this is a problem because in order for the binary strings to be interpreted as bitstrings (i.e. strings of characters representing equally likely binary events) there must be a strict one-to-one correspondence between each string and each countable conscious moment. Thus we are left with a contradiction. On the one hand we have shown that, on finding himself in some time interval n, the observer must gain an amount of information larger than any finite number of bits; this implies a countable infinity of bits. On the other hand we can see that the set of infinite-sized binary strings is too large for them to represent bitstrings over the countable set of conscious moments.

Now one could take this result at face value and declare that it simply implies that, on the assumption of an infinite lifetime, no prior probability assignment exists for the event of finding oneself at a particular position within that lifetime. But, as we have demonstrated above, one can at least argue for a succession of increasing lower bounds to the amount of information gained from such an event. Due to the inverse relationship between information and probability this result translates into a sequence of decreasing upper bounds for the prior probability. Thus, on finding oneself at some position within an infinite lifetime, one can argue that one’s prior probability for this event is less than any given value which implies that it must have some non-zero numerical assignment. Paradoxically, also as shown above, such a probability assignment cannot exist. I contend that the only way to avoid this dilemma is to deny that an infinite ensemble of conscious moments is possible even in principle.

## 6 The Hypothetical Conscious Computer

Now this result has fundamental implications for the theory of mind. Let us imagine that our conscious observer is a classical system operating according to a set of deterministic laws. It has been conjectured that the behaviour of such a system can always be simulated by a classical computer executing some finite-sized program. Thus, without loss of generality, we can assume that our observer is a classical computer that, by virtue of executing a particular program, generates a sequence of conscious moments. It should be noted that, strictly, we are taking an “epiphenomenal” philosophical stance in that we assume that the computer’s conscious awareness is a continuously generated by-product that does not interfere with its deterministic operation. As the computer’s behaviour is completely determined by its program, we have two scenarios: either the program generates a finite number of conscious moments or it produces an infinite number.

Now, as demonstrated in the previous section, the scenario of an infinite conscious lifetime leads to paradox. Thus, on the assumption that a computer experiences conscious awareness, this result implies that its program must only generate a finite sequence of conscious moments. But we know that this conclusion is absurd. We can always imagine a simple modification to the program so that, after generating its finite sequence of conscious moments, it resets the computer’s memory and re-executes itself. It seems clear that if the original program generates conscious awareness then the modified version should also generate a sequence of conscious moments comprising the original finite sequence endlessly repeating. Now one could argue that as such a repeating sequence only consists of a finite number of subjectively distinct moments then one still has a finite-sized ensemble of possibilities. In fact as the computer is a physical machine that dissipates energy with time then, according to the second law of thermodynamics, the entropy of the system comprising the computer and its environment should continually increase. As each conscious moment is then associated with a different configuration of the system as a whole then each one is, in principle, unique. Thus we again run into the infinite lifetime paradox. If the computer, while running such a program, finds itself in any given time interval then its current conscious moment is specified from within an infinite ensemble of unique moments that could have occupied that time interval. Again a contradiction arises in that the computer would gain an amount of information that, while larger than any finite number, cannot consistently be assigned an infinite value.

It is my contention that the only way out of this dilemma is to deny the initial assumption that a classical computer running a particular program can generate conscious awareness in the first place. This assertion is equivalent to stating that the phenomenon of consciousness cannot be fully described by any set of deterministic laws. Now we know, of course, that we are conscious (Descartes and all that!). Thus we arrive at the conclusion that our brains cannot operate purely on the basis of a set of deterministic laws. How can one understand this “non-deterministic” nature of consciousness further?

## 7 Chaotic Observers and Consistent Histories

I propose that in order to understand consciousness we need to consider a quantum-mechanical view of reality in which the instantaneous state of the brain is described by a superposition whose subsequent behaviour is represented by many sets of deterministic laws. This scenario can be understood in terms of the consistent histories approach to quantum theory, in which, through interaction with the rest of the Universe, the evolving wave function of a system continually decoheres into a mixture of quasi-classical histories. Now, in general, one can describe the state of a physical system by using a multi-dimensional configuration space in which each point represents the spatial positions of all the particles that make up the system. In classical physics the instantaneous state of a system is described by one point in configuration space. The time evolution of such a system is then represented by a single curve or history through that point, the shape of which is governed by deterministic laws comprising the classic “laws of physics” together with their “initial conditions”.

In contrast, the instantaneous state of a quantum system is described by a complex-valued wave function that can extend over the whole of configuration space. The wave function of an isolated quantum system then evolves as a coherent whole following the rules of quantum dynamics. Now this behaviour is altered if the quantum system interacts with its environment. In this case the wave function quickly loses its long- range phase coherence so that it evolves into a mixture of wave packets that are localized around each point in configuration space. As each of these wave packets is localized in configuration space then, due to the uncertainty principle, each must be delocalized in momentum space. Thus there is a tendency for each wave packet to spread out coherently before being broken up again into decoherent parts by interaction with the environment. In general, the time evolution of such a system takes the form of an overlapping continuum of constantly ramifying histories through configuration space, each one following approximately classical dynamics.

Now it has been pointed out by Stapp that attempts to explain, entirely within quantum theory, the single quasi-classical history experienced by an observer have so far foundered on the “preferred basis problem”. In order that quantum theory can provide a probabilistic prediction for which quasi-classical history an observer experiences one requires a discrete set of orthogonal quasi-classical histories that span the space of all such histories. In this section I propose that the divergent quasi-classical histories of certain chaotic systems might fulfil these requirements. Thus I am led to the tentative conclusion that human beings are conscious observers by virtue of the chaotic functioning of their brains (I’m tempted to say that I arrived at this hypothesis through introspection!).

In order to understand the special qualities of chaotic systems it is necessary first to review the behaviour of non-chaotic ones. Therefore let us consider that archetypal regular classical system, the clockwork mechanism. As mentioned before, the time evolution of such a classical system is described by a single history through configuration space. Now, in reality, Nature follows the rules of quantum mechanics. Thus even a clockwork mechanism should, in principle, be represented by a wave function in configuration space. If we assume that the mechanism interacts with the environment then its wave function will decohere into an overlapping mixture of localized wave packets. Each wave packet describes a superposition of clockwork mechanisms, whose components differ slightly in position, orientation and detailed structure. Now we assume that the mechanism is rigidly constructed so that any configuration in which its structure is significantly distorted has a high potential energy. As each wave packet spreads it is confined to one definite path through configuration space bounded by these high energy configurations. Thus the time evolution of the clockwork mechanism follows a continuum of linear quasi-classical histories whose shapes are governed by a single algorithm embodied in the rigid structure of the mechanism itself.

Now let us imagine a system whose evolution in time depends sensitively on its initial state. This is the hallmark of “chaotic” behaviour in classical dynamics. The instantaneous state of such a classical system is still represented by a point in configuration space and its time evolution represented by a single curve through that point. Thus, in principle, its behaviour is no different from that of a non-chaotic classical system. However, in practice, the difference between the two systems is manifest in the non-predictability of the chaotic system compared to the regular system, given that its initial state can only be specified to some finite degree of accuracy. For instance, one can imagine a pair of identical chaotic systems evolving from slightly different initial conditions, represented by a pair of closely separated points in configuration space. The curves representing these two systems diverge exponentially so that they subsequently behave in a very different manner.

Now we assume that the rules of quantum mechanics should hold for all physical systems. Thus, in reality, our chaotic system should be represented as a wave function in configuration space. Again, on interaction with the environment, this wave function decoheres into a mixture of localized wave packets each representing a superposition of chaotic systems, whose components vary slightly in location, orientation and detailed structure. However, in contrast to the clockwork mechanism, a chaotic system does not have a rigid construction so that configurations with significant distortions are not energetically disfavoured. Thus each wave packet can spread in all directions unhindered by high energy configurations. These extended wave packets are decohered by the environment so that the time evolution of the chaotic system follows a continuum of divergent branching quasi-classical histories.

Now let us consider Stapp’s stipulation that, in order to describe an observer’s experiences, one requires a discrete set of orthogonal histories. We have seen that the time evolution of the clockwork mechanism consists of a continuum of parallel histories so that such a system does not meet our requirements. The time evolution of a chaotic system, however, comprises a continuum of divergent histories that quickly become orthogonal to each other. Now I contend that each quasi-classical history is, in essence, a record of a calculation. Thus each history can be represented uniquely by the smallest program, in a given computer language, that performs that calculation. In the case of the clockwork mechanism all the histories are described by the one program embodied in the mechanism’s design. In the case of the chaotic system, however, there are many qualitatively distinct histories corresponding to different programs. Furthermore, since the set of programs is denumerable, the set of qualitatively distinct histories must be discrete. Thus a chaotic system seems to meet Stapp’s basic criteria for a quantum-mechanical observer.

It has been proposed that fundamental aspects of the brain’s functioning might well be chaotic in nature. In contrast to a clockwork mechanism, whose rigid structure precludes any small deviations in its instantaneous state from affecting its prescribed behaviour, the brain might be “soft” in the sense that its structure does not provide a barrier against such deviations magnifying into subsequent large-scale behaviour. In a classical world such behaviour would not be qualitatively distinct from that of a regular system as both, in principle, can be simulated to an arbitrary degree of accuracy by a computer executing a single program. In reality, however, as the brain is a quantum-mechanical system interacting with its environment, its time evolution should be represented by an ensemble of continually branching qualitatively distinct histories, each corresponding to a different program. Such a set of histories form a branching tree-like structure so that, from the vantage point of any localized wave packet describing an instantaneous state of the brain, there are many future paths but only one past. Thus I hypothesize that the current moment of consciousness is simultaneously associated with all the quasi-classical histories that go through its corresponding wave packet.

Now, Tegmark has argued that the decoherence timescale for the brain must be orders of magnitude less than its dynamical timescale. According to Clarke’s stability criterion, this fact seems to preclude superpositions of brain states from playing a part in conscious experience. In fact, according to Joos and Zeh, only the long-range phase correlations in a system’s wave function decohere quickly leaving a mixture of localized Gaussian wave packets that are stable with respect to further interactions with the environment. I contend that it is the superposition of microscopically different brain states represented by a wave packet that survives to become simultaneously associated with all the decohereing quasi-classical histories that branch from its region of configuration space.

## 8 Many-Worlds Resolution of the Doomsday Argument

The doomsday argument makes the implicit assumption that only one quasi-classical history will actually exist so that one’s current moment is only associated with one set of moments with a definite size. In order to avoid the infinite lifetime paradox, described in Section 5, we must assume that this set is finite. We have seen that any such history can be simulated by a classical computer running an appropriate program. Thus if a finite set of conscious moments is associated with only one history then the program that simulates that history should also generate the same set of moments. Now, as discussed in Section 6, given a program that generates a finite set of moments one can always construct a similar program that, in principle, generates an infinite set of moments. I contend that the only way to avoid the ensuing infinite lifetime paradox is to abandon the assumption that a particular quasi-classical history, or its equivalent program, can generate conscious awareness.

Now this result precludes any interpretation of quantum theory in which exclusive probabilities are assigned to the set of quasi-classical histories. Such an assignment would imply that only one of the histories actually occurs which, together with the fact of our consciousness, leads to the paradox described above. Instead we must assume that our current moment is simultaneously associated with many quasi-classical histories. This implies that our current moment is a member of many sets of moments simultaneously. Thus, following the many-worlds interpretation, we assume that the rules of quantum theory only provide an ensemble weight for each decoherent quasi- classical history. Thus the instantaneous state of the system comprising one’s brain and its environment determines the ensemble weight of all the subsequent quasi-classical histories that will be experienced by different versions of oneself. In a sense one’s “free-will” is preserved in that one has the freedom to do otherwise than one did (in fact a version of you did do otherwise) but also the ensemble weights of the subsequent actions of versions of oneself are influenced by one’s “nature” as defined by one’s initial brain state. Following the spirit of the doomsday argument as metaphysical reasoning, we do not have the details of the initial system state that would allow us to calculate the ensemble weights of its subsequent histories. Instead we need to assume some “template” weight function, $`W(N)`$, for the total weight of histories associated with N conscious moments. We already have a very natural candidate: the scaleless vague prior function given by

$$W(N)=\frac{1}{N}.$$

Now let us reconsider the original doomsday argument calculation. By applying Bayes’s theorem, we found that our posterior probability distribution, $`P(Nn)`$, for the set of exclusive hypotheses about the population size N, is given by the relation

$$P(Nn)P(nN)P(N),$$

where the distribution $`P(N)`$ represents our prior probabilities over the set of hypotheses and $`P(nN)`$ is the likelihood of finding ourselves in moment n given a particular hypothesis for N. Now the above calculation is only valid for a set of exclusive hypotheses for N so that $`P(N)`$ represents a prior distribution of exclusive probabilities. But, as mentioned previously, in the many-worlds view each moment is associated with many actually occurring quasi-classical histories that correspond to different population sizes N. Thus in this scenario our prior distribution $`W(N)`$ represents a set of ensemble weights for each value of N.

Let us assume that each quasi-classical history of the brain is correlated with a particular finite set of N conscious moments. In doing this we do not assume that a particular history is sufficient, in itself, to generate that set of conscious moments but rather that it is a necessary factor. One can use the principle of indifference to argue that the probability, $`P(nN)`$, of finding oneself at moment n within this set of N conscious moments, is given by

$$P(nN)=\frac{1}{N}.$$

Now although each history is associated with only one set of conscious moments, each moment is associated with many histories and consequently many sets of moments. In order to calculate the total probability of finding oneself in any moment, one needs to add the probability contributions from all the sets that contain that moment. Thus the probability of finding oneself in moment n, $`P(n)`$, is given by the sum of all principle of indifference terms, $`P(nN)`$, associated with each history with a particular value of N, multiplied by the weight function for such histories, $`W(N)`$, so that we have

$$P(n)=\underset{N=n}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}P(nN)W(N).$$

If we substitute in our expression for the principle of indifference, $`P(nN)=1/N`$, and our vague prior weight function $`W(N)=1/N`$ we find

$$P(n)=\underset{N=n}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{N^2}.$$

By approximating the above sum with an integral we find that

$$P(n)=\frac{1}{n}.$$

Now as this probability distribution is the vague prior function again, the calculation shows that conditionalizing on the assumption that our current moment is a member of many sets of moments simultaneously does not alter our initial ignorance about our position, which is also represented by the vague prior. In other words, on finding ourselves in moment n, rather than gaining information about the total lifetime N that we will experience, we instead simply gain the amount of information implicit in the number n itself, which is never more than $`\mathrm{log}_2n`$ bits. The only difference between this many-worlds calculation and the original doomsday calculation is that the condition of exclusivity between hypotheses for the total population size has been lifted. It seems that in generalizing Gott’s Copernican principle, namely that one should not expect to be located at a “special” position within a particular population, to cover the case where one is located within many versions of the population simultaneously, one finds that it loses its predictive power.

Finally, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this generalized version of the Copernican principle naturally accommodates an infinite set of possibilities for the position of one’s current moment while at the same time avoiding the absurdity inherent in the assumption of an infinite lifetime. This is achieved by hypothesizing that, in principle, one’s current conscious moment is associated with all the quasi-classical histories that go through its region of configuration space, each history only being correlated with consciousness over a finite section of its length. As we only ever apply the principle of indifference over finite sections of histories then we never encounter the problem of extending a uniform probability distribution over an infinite interval. But if we assume, a priori, that all histories exist then this implies that, for any given finite conscious lifetime N, there is always a history that is correlated with a finite lifetime larger than N. Thus one can see that our many-worlds viewpoint, while denying the possibility of an infinite conscious lifetime, refrains from imposing an upper limit to the position of one’s current moment within a lifetime.

One could criticize this analysis for being based on the vague prior weight function. As mentioned previously, this function is only a template for the actual normalizable weight distribution determined by the initial quantum state of the system comprising one’s brain and its environment. In fact, one can argue that the set of actual weight distributions can be divided into two classes: those with a finite upper bound for N and those without an upper bound. If the distribution of conscious lifetimes is bounded then this implies that a quantum simulation of the system as a whole, after running for a finite amount of time, would produce no more conscious awareness. Now if this were the case one could, in principle, continually re-run this finite simulation so as to produce a set of infinite conscious lifetimes. As this possibility leads to the infinite lifetime paradox again I speculate that the actual weight distribution of lifetimes associated with any conscious moment cannot have an upper bound. This result would give credence to an actual “quantum immortality” of the form described above.

## 9 Conclusions

The doomsday argument, in its original formulation, uses the principle of indifference to predict the lifetime of the human race given our position within it. When applied to the lifetime of a single observer, considered as a sequence of “moments”, one appreciates that the argument actually depends on the observer’s conscious awareness. By considering the case of an infinite lifetime I derive contradictory conditions on the amount of information gained on “finding” oneself within such an ensemble of moments. I conclude that an infinite conscious lifetime is not possible, even in principle. This result is, in fact, an embodiment of the doomsday argument itself.

Now, on the assumption that an observer follows deterministic laws, one should always be able to simulate him by a classical computer running an appropriate program. In such a scenario the observer’s consciousness would be a continually generated by-product of the computer’s operation. But given a program that generates a finite set of conscious moments one can, in principle, always construct a non-terminating program that generates an infinite set of conscious moments. I contend that, in order to avoid the ensuing infinite lifetime paradox, one must abandon the assumption that consciousness can be generated by a single set of deterministic laws.

This result motivates me to consider the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics which, together with the phenomenon of environmental decoherence, implies that many quasi-classical histories exist, each following its own set of deterministic laws. Now I propose that the chaotic histories of the brain, when classified in terms of computation, provide a discrete orthogonal basis set of experienced histories. I then hypothesize that one’s current moment of consciousness is generated by a superposition of microscopically dissimilar brain states, localized in configuration space, that is simultaneously associated with many divergent quasi-classical histories leading to different conscious lifetimes.

Now the doomsday argument implicitly assumes that only one history will exist so that one’s current moment is only associated with one set of conscious moments. When one lifts this assumption, by interpreting one’s prior for the total population size to be an ensemble weight rather than an exclusive probability, one finds that the doomsday argument fails to make any prediction about the lifetime that any version of oneself will experience. This generalized doomsday argument solves Einstein’s problem of representing the probability of “finding” oneself in infinite time without leading to the absurdity of zero probability. In doing so it forces us to abandon the notion of time as an infinite line but instead assume a many-worlds view in which time has an unbounded tree-like structure, each branch of which supports consciousness over a finite section of its length.


format: text

text:
# Noncommutative version of an arbitrary nondegenerated mechanics.

(Dept. de Matematica, ICE, Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora,
MG, Brasil.)

## Abstract

A procedure to obtain noncommutative version for any nondegenerated dynamical system is proposed and discussed.

It is known that the noncommutative geometry  of the position variables in some mechanical models can be obtained \[3-8\] as the result of direct canonical quantization  of underlying dynamical systems with second class constraints. Nontrivial bracket for the position variables appears in this case as the Dirac bracket, after taking into account the constraints presented in the model. In this note we show how to obtain the noncommutative version of any nondegenerated mechanical system. Namely, the following statement will be demonstrated.

Let $`S=𝑑tL(q^A,\dot{q}^A)`$ is action of some nondegenerated system, and let $`L_1(q^A,\dot{q}^A,v_A)`$ is the corresponding first order Lagrangian (see below). Then the corresponding noncommutative version is $`S_N=𝑑t\left[L_1(q^A,\dot{q}^A,v_A)+\dot{v}_A\theta ^{AB}v_B\right]`$. Namely, the system $`S_N`$ has the following properties:
1) It has the same number of physical degrees of freedom as the initial system $`S`$.
2) Equations of motion of the system are the same as for the initial system $`S`$, modulo the term which is proportional to the parameter $`\theta ^{AB}`$.
3) Configuration space variables have the noncommutative brackets: $`\{q^A,q^B\}=2\theta ^{AB}`$.

We point also that quantization of the system $`S_N`$ leads to quantum mechanics with ordinary product replaced by the Moyal product, similarly to the case of a particle on noncommutative plane.

Let us present details. Our starting point is some nondegenerated mechanical system with the configuration space variables $`q^A(t),A=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$, and the Lagrangian action

$`S={\displaystyle 𝑑tL(q^A,\dot{q}^A)}.`$ (1)
Due to nondegenerate character of the system, there are no constraints in the Hamiltonian formulation. Let $`p_A`$ are conjugated momentum for $`q^A`$, one can write the Hamiltonian action

$`S_H={\displaystyle 𝑑t\left[p_A\dot{q}^AH_0(q^A,p_A)\right]}.`$ (2)
Equations of motion which follow from Eq.(1) and (2) are equivalent (they remain equivalent for any degenerated system also ). Equivalently, one can describe the initial system (1) by means of the first order Lagrangian action

$`S_1={\displaystyle 𝑑t\left[v_A\dot{q}^AH_0(q^A,v_A)\right]}.`$ (3)
Here $`q^A(t),v_A(t)`$ are the configuration space variables of the formulation 222The Lagrangian formulations (1), (3) are equivalent. Actually, denoting the conjugated momentum for the variables $`q^A,v_A`$ as $`p_A,\pi ^A`$ one finds, in the Hamiltonian formulation for the action (3), the second class constraints $`p_Av_A=0,\pi ^A=0`$. Introducing the corresponding Dirac bracket, one can treat the constraints as the strong equations. Then the Hamiltonian formulation for (3) is the same as for (1), namely Eq.(2).. The noncommutative version of the system (1) is described by the following Lagrangian action

$`S_N={\displaystyle 𝑑t\left[v_A\dot{q}^AH_0(q^A,v_A)+\dot{v}_A\theta ^{AB}v_B\right]},`$ (4)
where $`\theta ^{AB}`$ is some constant matrix. It turns out to be the noncommutativity parameter for the variables $`q^A`$.

To analyse the physical sector of the Lagrangian system (4), we rewrite it in the Hamiltonian form. All the expressions for determining of the momentum turn out to be the primary constraints of the model ($`p_A,\pi ^A`$ are conjugated momentum for the variables $`q^A,v_A`$)

$`G_Ap_Av_A=0,T^A\pi ^A\theta ^{AB}v_B.`$ (5)
The Hamiltonian is

$`H=H_0(q^A,v_A)+\lambda _1^AG_A+\lambda _{2A}T^A,`$ (6)
where $`\lambda `$ are the Lagrangian multipliers for the constraints. On the next step of the procedure there are appear only equations for determining of the Lagrangian multipliers

$`\lambda _{2A}={\displaystyle \frac{H_0}{q^A}},\lambda _1^A={\displaystyle \frac{H_0}{v_A}}2\theta ^{AB}{\displaystyle \frac{H_0}{q^B}}.`$ (7)
Equations of motion follow from (6), (7)

$`\dot{q}^A={\displaystyle \frac{H_0}{v_A}}2\theta ^{AB}{\displaystyle \frac{H_0}{q^B}},\dot{p}_A={\displaystyle \frac{H_0}{q^A}};`$ (8)
$`\dot{v}_A={\displaystyle \frac{H_0}{q^A}},\dot{\pi }^A=\theta ^{AB}{\displaystyle \frac{H_0}{q^B}}.`$ (9)
They are accompanied by the second class constraints (5). Poisson brackets of the constraints are

$`\{G_A,G_B\}=0,\{T^A,T^B\}=2\theta ^{AB},\{G_A,T^B\}=\delta _A^B.`$ (10)
The constraints can be taken into account by transition to the Dirac bracket. Introducing the Dirac bracket

$`\{A,B\}_D=\{A,B\}+2\{A,G_A\}\theta ^{AB}\{G_B,B\}`$ (11)
$`\{A,G_A\}\{T^A,B\}+\{A,T^A\}\{G_A,B\},`$ (12)
one finds, in particular, the following brackets for the fundamental variables (all the nonzero brackets are presented)

$`\{q^A,q^B\}=2\theta ^{AB},\{q^A,p_B\}=\delta _B^A,\{p_A,p_B\}=0;`$ (13)
$`\{q^A,v_B\}=\delta _B^A,\{q^A,\pi ^B\}=\theta ^{AB}.`$ (14)
One has now different possibilities to choose the physical sector: either $`(q^A,p_A)`$, or $`(q^A,v_A)`$, or $`(q^A,\pi _A)`$ (the latter possibility implies that $`\theta `$ is invertible). Let us take the variables $`(q^A,p_A)`$ (the same as for the initial formulation (1)) as the physical one. Since the Dirac bracket has been introduced, the variables $`v,\pi `$ can be omitted from consideration. Dynamics of the physical variables is governed now by the equations

$`\dot{q}^A={\displaystyle \frac{H_0}{p_A}}2\theta ^{AB}{\displaystyle \frac{H_0}{q^B}},\dot{p}_A={\displaystyle \frac{H_0}{q^A}},`$ (15)
where $`H_0(q,p)=H_0(q,v)|_{vp}`$. Modulo the term with $`\theta `$, they are the same as for the initial system (1). Brackets for the variables $`q^A,p_A`$ are given by Eqs.(13). One can show that other possibilities to choose the physical variables lead to an equivalent description.

To quantize the resulting system, one possibility is to find variables which have the standard brackets. For the case under consideration they are

$`\stackrel{~}{q}^A=q^A\theta ^{AB}p_B,\stackrel{~}{p}_A=p_A,`$ (16)
and obey $`\{\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{q}\}=\{\stackrel{~}{p},\stackrel{~}{p}\}=0,\{\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{p}\}=1`$. Equations of motion in terms of these variables acquire the standard form

$`\dot{\stackrel{~}{q}}^A=\{\stackrel{~}{q}^A,\stackrel{~}{H}_0\},\dot{\stackrel{~}{p}}_A=\{\stackrel{~}{p}_A,\stackrel{~}{H}_0\},`$ (17)
where $`\stackrel{~}{H}_0=H_0(\stackrel{~}{q}+\theta \stackrel{~}{p},\stackrel{~}{p})`$. It leads to quantum mechanics with the Moyal product (see  and references therein)

$`H_0(\stackrel{~}{q}^A+\theta ^{AB}\stackrel{~}{p}_B,\stackrel{~}{p}_B)\mathrm{\Psi }\left(\stackrel{~}{q}^C\right)=H_0(\stackrel{~}{q}^A,\stackrel{~}{p}_B)\mathrm{\Psi }\left(\stackrel{~}{q}^C\right).`$ (18)
In conclusion, let us point that the procedure described above can be applied to some degenerated systems as well. In particular, the noncommutative relativistic particle has been proposed in  following a similar line.