Xiaoyang Yu

本书从硬决定论（宇宙状态演化遵循S(t+1)=R(S(t))）的本体论前提出发，系统论证了一个激进的哲学立场：人类所经验的层级化世界完全是认知系统通过"认知切割"（cognitive cutting）机制创造的理型虚构。通过分析计算机变量的"容器"功能、图灵机的多重可实现性以及康威生命游戏中的计算实现，本书揭示了高层概念（如"存储"、"计算"、"因果"）在底层物理过程中的本体论缺失，证明了不同描述层级之间不存在还原关系，而只存在外在的诠释映射。本书进一步论证，所谓的"涌现"并非物理过程的属性，而是观察者在复杂模式上的理型投射；科学理论不是发现世界的层级结构，而是创造越来越精致的理型系统来组织观察。在认识论层面，本书提出"认知切割"是人类认知的本质操作——通过空间切割创造"对象"，通过时间切割创造"事件"，通过概念切割创造"类别"，而语言则强化并传播这些虚构。这导向一个悖论性的结论：我们注定要通过扭曲实在的方式来理解实在，通过虚构的概念来把握非概念的物理过程。本书最终提出一种"全息本体论"，主张宇宙是不可分割的整体，所有"独立性"都是认知幻觉，而人类的独特处境在于：作为物理过程的一部分，却必须通过创造概念世界来理解整体，在认识到虚构本质的同时仍然必须生活在虚构之中——这种"知道但仍然必须"的双重觉察，构成了人类存在的根本张力和尊严。

How can we know that an action is based on a bias? For example, how can we know that an action is based on a bias towards a group of people? For example, if Asian American students got more attention from the teachers (Lee et al., 2015), how can we know that the teachers gave more attention to these students because of their race? Before a teacher first meets an Asian American student in person, the teacher might have a bias based on the student’s Asian name. But after the teacher meets the student in person, if the teacher gives this student more attention, how can we know that this teacher’s bias is based on the student’s race? In theory, it’s possible that this teacher gives this student more attention, only because this teacher thinks this student to be smart. How can we exclude this possibility? There is no way to exclude this possibility.

When I feel an urge to make a decision/choice, this urge is an emotion in my mind. If this urge/emotion is weakened (by myself/others) intentionally/unintentionally, then I will postpone the decision/choice making process. When I evaluate all possible options for the decision/choice, each option triggers an urge/emotion in my mind. These urges/emotions fight with each other in my mind, until one of them becomes dominated. And then I will choose the option represented by that dominated urge/emotion. If an urge/emotion (which represents an option) is weakened (by myself/others) intentionally/unintentionally, then I will ignore the option (represented by that urge/emotion).

As soon as you believe an imagination to be nonfictional, this imagination becomes your ontological theory of the reality. Your ontological theory (of the reality) can describe a system as the reality. However, actually this system is only a theory/conceptual-space/imagination/visual-imagery of yours, not the actual reality (i.e., the thing-in-itself). An ontological theory (of the reality) actually only describes your (subjective/mental) imagination/visual-imagery/conceptual-space. An ontological theory of the reality, is being described as a situation model (SM). There is no way to prove/disprove that there is only one reality, or there are two realities (i.e., “subjective reality” and “objective reality”). So, every ontology talk/theory/imagination about the two realities is only a talk/theory/imagination – we will never know whether it is true or not. The conventionally-called “physical/objective reality/world” around my conventionally-called “physical/objective body” is actually a geometric mathematical model (being generated/mathematically-modeled by my brain) – it's actually a subset/component/part/element of my brain’s mind/consciousness/manifest-image. Our cosmos is an autonomous objective parallel computing automaton (aka state machine) which evolves by itself automatically/unintentionally – wave-particle duality and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle can be explained under this SM of my brain. Each elementary particle (as a building block of our cosmos) is an autonomous mathematical entity itself (i.e., a thing in itself). Our cosmos has the same nature as a Game of Life system – both are autonomous objective parallel-computing automata. Cosmos (as a state machine) is indistinguishable from a digital simulation – my consciousness (as something nonphysical) is not cosmos (as a state machine). If we are happy to accept randomness/stochasticity, then it is obviously possible that all other worlds in the many-worlds interpretation (MWI) actually do not exist (objectively). As one metaphysical option, we can treat all other worlds as subjective only (even if they are actually objective). Under the context of this metaphysical option, we are only living in one world (i.e., the world we are currently living in; this world) – we are not living in many worlds at the same time parallelly. Under the context of this metaphysical option, there is only one possible future. The relationship among any number of elementary particles, is governed/described by Schrodinger equation. If (in theory) Schrodinger equation can’t be used to reliably forecast whether I will go to McDonald for dinner in this world (based on the current state of all elementary particles of the cosmos), then what can Schrodinger equation do? The conventionally-called “space” does not exist objectively. “Time” and “matter” are not physical. Consciousness is the subjective-form (aka quale) of the mathematical models (of the objective cosmos) which are intracorporeally/subjectively used by the control logic of a Turing machine’s program fatedly. A Turing machine’s mind/consciousness/manifest-image or deliberate decisions/choices should not be able to actually/objectively change/control/drive the (autonomous or fated) worldline of any elementary particle within this world (i.e., the world we are currently living in, under the context of MWI). Besides the Schrodinger equation (or another mathematical equation/function which is yet to be discovered) which is a valid/correct/factual causality of our cosmos/state-machine, every other causality (of our cosmos/state-machine) is either invalid/incorrect/counterfactual or can be proved by deductive inference based on the Schrodinger equation (or the aforementioned yet-to-be-discovered mathematical equation/function) only. Closed causality entails no causality. Consciousness plays no causal role (“epiphenomenalism”), or in other words, any cognitive/behavioural activity can in principle be carried out without consciousness (“conscious inessentialism”). If the “loop quantum gravity” theory is correct, then time/space does not actually/objectively exist in the objective-evolution of the objective cosmos, or in other words, we should not use the subjective/mental concept of “time”, “state” or “space” to describe/imagine the objective-evolution of our cosmos.

No matter how many words/gestures one uses to describe his/her qualia, I won't be able to know what it was like for him/her to experience his/her qualia. I know what it was like for me to experience my qualia, simply because I can remember what it was like for me to experience my qualia. So, to me, there is no evidence that anyone else can experience his/her qualia. So, one can't prove to others that he/she can experience his/her qualia. One can’t (use any words/gestures to) prove to others that he/she can experience his/her qualia. "What is it like to be a bat?" When I imagine what it is like to be a bat, I'm actually imagining that I am the bat. Or in other words, I’m imagining that the bat is me. When I imagine that a bat is me, I’m actually imagining that a homunculus is sitting inside the bat’s body. What does this mean? What is that homunculus? That homunculus is a “clone” of me! That homunculus is another “me”! So, when I imagine that a bat is me, I’m actually imagining that I am sitting inside the bat’s body. So, the question “What is it like to be a bat?” is actually equivalent to the question “What is it like to be me?” or the question “If I sit inside a bat’s body (and control/feel the bat’s body) as the bat itself, what is it like to be me (under that situation)?”. The question “What is it like to be me?” is actually equivalent to the question “If I sit inside a human’s body (and control/feel the human’s body) as the human himself, what is it like to be me (under that situation)?” or the question “If I sit inside my body (and control/feel my body) as myself, what is it like to be me (under that situation)?”. Regarding its usage, the term “qualia” is equivalent to “(subjective) feeling” and “(subjective) experience”. The term “qualia” draws our attention to the ontological question “What is the nature of (subjective) feeling/experience?”. The term “qualia” urges us to think about the ontological question “What is the nature of (subjective) feeling/experience?” endlessly.

In order to describe my findings/conclusions systematically, a new semantic system (i.e., a new language) has to be intentionally defined by the present article. Humans are limited in what they know by the technical limitation of their cortical language network. A reality is a situation model (SM). For example, the conventionally-called “physical reality” around my conventionally-called “physical body” is actually a “geometric” SM of my brain. The universe is an autonomous objective parallel computing automaton which evolves by itself automatically/unintentionally – wave-particle duality and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle can be explained under this “first-order” SM of my brain. Each elementary particle (as a building block of the universe) is an autonomous mathematical entity itself (i.e., a thing in itself). If we are happy to accept randomness, it is obviously possible that all other worlds in the many-worlds interpretation do not exist objectively. The conventionally-called “space” does not exist objectively. “Time” and “matter” are not physical. Consciousness is the subjective-form (aka quale) of the mathematical models (of the objective universe) which are intracorporeally/subjectively used by the control logic of a Turing machine’s program objectively-fatedly. A Turing machine’s consciousness or deliberate decisions/choices should not be able to actually/objectively change/control/drive the (autonomous or objectively-fated) world line of any elementary particle within this world. Besides the Schrodinger equation (or its real-world counterpart) which is a valid/correct/factual causality of the universe, every other causality (of the universe) is either invalid/incorrect/counterfactual or can be proved by deductive inference based on the Schrodinger equation only. If the “loop quantum gravity” theory is correct, time/space does not actually/objectively exist in the objective-evolution of the objective-reality, or in other words, we should not use the subjective/mental concept of “time”, “state” or “space” to describe/imagine the objective-evolution of the universe.