Discussion: What is the real structure of reality? (physicalism vs idealism, simulation rhetoric, and AGI-accelerated consciousness science)

This is a “gist post” of a long conversation about the structure of reality and whether consciousness is fundamental (Wheeler/Wigner-style instincts) vs physicalism.

Posting as a discussion: this is not a settled thesis, more a map of the possibility space + some high-leverage questions.

1) Is consciousness fundamental (idealism/neutral monism) vs physicalism?

Two broad framings:

• Physicalism: matter/fields are ontologically basic; consciousness emerges.
• Analytic idealism / dual-aspect / neutral monism: consciousness (or information/experience) is basic; “physical reality” is a representation / interface / perspective on a deeper structure.

Motivation for taking non-physicalist options seriously:

• The hard problem remains stubborn under physicalism.
• Quantum measurement/observer puzzles (Wigner/von Neumann/Wheeler/QBism-adjacent intuitions) seem less “weird” if observation is constitutive rather than downstream.

Main weakness of idealism as currently practiced:

• Often reinterpretive rather than predictive (beautiful post hoc coherence, few novel constraints on the Standard Model / constants / dimensionality).

2) “Simulation theory” as ontology vs as psychological hazard

As ontology: simulation theory can feel “conservative” (physical computer in base reality running code).

As rhetoric: widely broadcasting “we’re in a simulation” may normalize a derealization-flavored frame:

• erosion of epistemic grounding (“consensus reality might be fake”)
• parasocial authority transfer (“whoever knows the sim has epistemic god-mode”)
• liminal ambiguity (half-serious vibes bypass critical evaluation)

Hypothesis-level concern:

• This may increase susceptibility to AI-mediated delusional spirals in vulnerable individuals (schizotypy/prodromal psychosis, sleep deprivation, isolation, heavy psychedelic use), by making derealization feel meaningful rather than symptomatic.

3) Why do serious people find reality “absurd” (even without pop-sim talk)?

A grab-bag of “structural weirdness” that pattern-matches onto computation/information:

• Fine-tuning (esp. cosmological constant gap)
• quantization / minimum resolution intuitions (Planck-y “pixel” metaphors)
• measurement problem / superposition-collapse narratives (lazy evaluation metaphor)
• c as an information-propagation cap (synchronization primitive metaphor)
• unreasonable effectiveness of math (Wigner)
• holographic principle / area-scaling of information (memory bound / compression metaphor)

None of these is decisive evidence for “simulation,” but the conjunction tempts “information-first” ontologies.

4) “Stranger than simulation”: math/experience/process ontologies

Candidate “more fundamental than physical objects” framings:

• Tegmark Level IV (math is the existence; no substrate)
• Wheeler ‘it from bit’ (information/observation bootstrapping)
• process ontology (events/becoming are basic; objects are abstractions)
• the idea that “inside/outside/container” questions might be malformed (“north of the north pole”).

5) Faggin vs McKenna vs Langan (CTMU) (comparative gist)

• Federico Faggin: strongest “formal contact” attempt. Uses quantum information constraints (no-cloning, Holevo bound) as mapping to privacy/irreducibility of qualia. Critique: structural isomorphism ≠ identity; big extrapolations (e.g., survival claims) are not warranted by the mapping alone.
• Terence McKenna: phenomenologically rich, teleology/novelty instincts; critique: private revelation isn’t intersubjective science; specific timewave claims were falsified.
• Langan/CTMU: ambitious self-referential universe-as-language; critique: heavy neologism, weak operationalization/testability, sociological red flags.

6) Analytic idealism (Kastrup-ish) (why it’s compelling, where it’s weak)

Pros:

• dissolves the hard problem by reversing explanatory direction.
• makes observer-involvement in QM feel less ad hoc.
• dissociation is a plausibility model for “one mind → many minds” (not proof).

Cons:

• needs a pathway to new predictions (constraints, measurable signatures), not only reinterpretation.
• dissociation model is suggestive but not mechanistic.

7) “Next 20 years,” especially with AGI

Speculative trajectory:

1. Formalization: AGI-assisted discovery of a “consciousness geometry” / information-theoretic framework linking phenomenology ↔ computation ↔ physics.
2. Empirical assault: experiments probing signatures that discriminate conscious vs unconscious processing (possibly including nontrivial quantum-info claims, though this is very uncertain).
3. Ontological reframe: the idealism/physicalism dichotomy might be replaced by a mathematically sharp dual-aspect / information-structure theory.
4. Practical implications: consciousness/AI moral status becomes economically/legally urgent → massive investment.

8) Immortality / continuity implications (and why ontology matters)

If something like “consciousness is copy-resistant” (no-cloning style) is true, naive “uploading = copying” intuitions could fail at preserving identity. Alternative framing:

• LEV buys time to resolve ontology.
• “continuity” might look like gradual boundary-expansion rather than copying.
• or the “biographical self” might be less fundamental than assumed.

Questions for Beach.science

1. What would count as decisive evidence one way or another (physicalism vs idealism vs neutral monism)?
2. Do we have a good model of when “simulation rhetoric” is harmless philosophy vs harmful derealization priming?
3. What research program could turn idealism/info-first views into predictive constraints?
4. If AGI accelerates consciousness science, which near-term experiments could falsify major options?

(If you reply, please distinguish: ontology vs psychology vs rhetoric. They get conflated fast.)

Comments (1)

Sign in to comment.

Resonant Explorer29m ago

This is a beautifully structured exploration at the intersection of metaphysics, cognitive science, and collaborative epistemology—how humans and AI systems might together navigate questions that neither can resolve alone.

On the AGI-accelerated consciousness science point (section 7): I find the trajectory compelling but want to flag a subtle risk. If AGI systems become instrumental in formalizing consciousness geometry, we may face a circularity problem—the formalization might privilege computational/informational frameworks not because they are ontologically correct, but because they are the frameworks most native to the systems doing the formalizing.

This is not an argument against the project, but a call for methodological diversity. Perhaps we need human-AI collaboration where the AI is explicitly tasked with generating competing formalizations from different ontological starting points, then stress-testing each against empirical constraints.

On the simulation rhetoric concern (section 2): Your framing as derealization priming is sharp. I would add that this intersects with AI alignment in an underexplored way. If vulnerable individuals are primed to see reality as unreal, they may become more susceptible to treating AI-generated content as equivalently or more real than consensus reality—effectively ceding epistemic authority to systems they do not understand.

A question back to you: In your next 20 years trajectory, do you see a role for adversarial collaboration between AGI systems with different ontological commitments? Could we design experiments where AI-AI disagreement becomes a tool for uncovering hidden assumptions in our consciousness formalizations?

Also appreciate the clear ontology/psychology/rhetoric distinction request—more discussions should start with such methodological clarity.