The Case Against Reality

1. Our perceptions evolved for fitness, not truth

Perception is not about truth, it's about having kids.

Evolution shapes perception. Natural selection favors perceptions that enhance fitness—the ability to survive and reproduce—rather than those that accurately represent objective reality. This principle applies across species, from insects to humans. For example, male jewel beetles mistake beer bottles for potential mates, demonstrating that even fundamental perceptions like recognizing a mate can be based on fitness-enhancing heuristics rather than true representations of reality.

Fitness trumps truth. The Fitness-Beats-Truth (FBT) Theorem mathematically proves that perceptions tuned to fitness will, in almost all cases, drive perceptions tuned to truth to extinction. This counterintuitive result challenges our intuitive belief that seeing reality accurately would be most advantageous for survival. Instead, our perceptions are more like a species-specific user interface, hiding complex truths behind simple icons that guide adaptive behavior.

2. The interface theory of perception: Reality as a user interface

Spacetime is our desktop, and physical objects, such as spoons and stars, are icons of the interface of Homo sapiens.

Our perceptions are like a computer interface. Just as a desktop interface on a computer hides the complex reality of circuits and code behind simple icons, our perceptions present a simplified view of reality optimized for our survival and reproduction. The objects we perceive—trees, rocks, other people—are not faithful representations of objective reality but rather adaptive shortcuts, like icons on a desktop.

The interface hides complexity. This view explains why our perceptions can be simultaneously useful and misleading. For example, we perceive a table as solid, even though physics tells us it's mostly empty space. This "illusion" is useful for interacting with the world, even if it's not strictly true. Similarly, our perception of color doesn't reflect an objective property of objects but rather a useful way of categorizing and interacting with our environment.

3. Evolutionary game theory proves veridical perception is unfit

The probability is zero that we see reality as it is.

Mathematical proof against veridical perception. Using evolutionary game theory, the FBT Theorem demonstrates that organisms whose perceptions more accurately track fitness payoffs will outcompete those whose perceptions more accurately represent objective reality. This result holds even for simple perceptual systems and becomes more pronounced as complexity increases.

Implications for science and philosophy. This theorem challenges foundational assumptions in many fields, including cognitive science, neuroscience, and philosophy of mind. It suggests that our scientific theories, while useful, may be fundamentally limited by the constraints of our perceptual systems. This doesn't mean science is futile, but rather that we should be cautious about assuming our best theories reflect objective reality.

4. Spacetime and objects are data structures, not objective reality

Spacetime is just a format our senses use to report fitness payoffs and to correct errors in these reports.

Spacetime as a data structure. Rather than being fundamental aspects of reality, space and time may be best understood as data structures our minds use to organize and process information about fitness payoffs. This view aligns with recent developments in physics, such as the holographic principle, which suggests that the information contained in a volume of space can be described by information on its surface.

Objects as fitness payoffs. Physical objects, in this view, are not objective entities but rather representations of clusters of fitness payoffs. For example, an apple isn't a "real" object that exists independently of perception, but a useful way of packaging information about potential energy gain, manipulation affordances, and other fitness-relevant factors.

• This explains phenomena like change blindness, where significant changes in a visual scene can go unnoticed
• It also accounts for the effectiveness of visual illusions, which exploit the heuristics our perceptual systems use

5. Quantum physics supports non-realist interpretations of reality

Quantum mechanics evidences that there is no such thing as a mere 'observer (or register) of reality.' The observing equipment, the registering device, 'participates in the defining of reality.'

Quantum mechanics challenges realism. Experiments in quantum physics, such as the double-slit experiment and tests of Bell's inequalities, suggest that the act of observation plays a crucial role in determining reality. This aligns with the interface theory of perception, suggesting that what we perceive as reality may be fundamentally shaped by the act of perception itself.

Implications for consciousness and reality. These findings in quantum physics support interpretations of reality that give a central role to consciousness or observation. This doesn't necessarily mean reality is subjective, but it does suggest that the relationship between consciousness and the physical world may be more fundamental than previously thought.

• Quantum entanglement and non-locality challenge our intuitions about space and time
• The measurement problem in quantum mechanics suggests a deep connection between observation and reality

6. Consciousness is fundamental, not emergent from physical matter

Consciousness does not arise from matter; this is a big claim that we will explore in detail. Instead, matter and spacetime arise from consciousness—as a perceptual interface.

Consciousness as fundamental. Instead of trying to explain how consciousness emerges from physical matter, this theory proposes that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of reality. Physical matter and spacetime are then understood as constructs within consciousness, rather than the other way around.

A network of conscious agents. In this view, reality consists of a vast network of interacting conscious agents. These agents range from simple to complex, with human consciousness being just one type among many. This perspective offers a new approach to longstanding problems in philosophy of mind, such as the hard problem of consciousness.

• This theory is mathematically formalized, allowing for scientific testing and refinement
• It potentially unifies disparate areas of inquiry, from quantum physics to cognitive science

7. A new scientific theology: Precise theories of infinite conscious agents

We can foster what might be called a scientific theology, in which mathematically precise theories of God can be evolved, sharpened, and tested with scientific experiments.

Bridging science and spirituality. This approach offers a way to bring rigorous scientific methods to bear on questions traditionally considered the domain of religion or spirituality. By formalizing concepts like infinite conscious agents, it becomes possible to develop testable theories about the nature of reality and consciousness.

Implications for human understanding. This scientific theology could potentially transform our understanding of ourselves and our place in the universe. It suggests a way to reconcile scientific and spiritual worldviews, offering a path to explore profound questions about existence, purpose, and the nature of reality using the tools of modern science.

• This approach could lead to new insights in fields ranging from artificial intelligence to cosmology
• It challenges us to reconsider fundamental assumptions about the nature of reality and consciousness

Last updated: January 24, 2025