Smolin’s (et al.) Universe that Learns

I’m a big fan of Lee Smolin (at least of his layperson works). Two of his books, The Trouble with Physics and Einstein’s Unfinished Revolution, are books that I have checked back on many times. He may not want to admit one this aspect of his work in that I think he can do metaphysics better than most.

Recently, I have re-read his ArXiv post, “The Autodidactic Universe” (2021). He was a co-author of this article.

Simply put, the authors of this article (including Smolin) argue that there is a correlation between gauge field theories and neural networking. This suggests a metaphorical “brain” or “intelligence.” The authors make this correlation by describing a learning system as “autodidactic” if it self-learns / wants to learn without concern of threat (subjective?) as well as learning for survival in a Darwinian sense (objective?). One could then further describe learning as a survival technique at multiple levels of reality — not just in biology.

Per the authors:

“A consequencer accumulates information from the past that is more influential to the future than is typical for other contents of the system. It is the negative feedback loop in your home’s thermostat, or a star, or a naturally occurring reactor. It is a bit in a computer, or a gene.”

In a sense, a matrix model could represent quantum gauge theories but also learning machines. Any change in the model would lead to “learning” in the universe as represented by universe dimensions and gauge groups. I assume this learning would consist of moving through time. The degrees of freedom in such a model could have thermal limitations as seen in nature. Such limitation of learning can be seen in neural networks as well. Additionally, the universe learning would be like a computer that learns on its own…with the eventual capacity of consciousness (my addition)? The article states that internal adversaries would be built into the universe’s system in order for the system to learn. The ability to evade or outsmart an adversary would be evolution in action and would also constitute learning.

The Pleiades, from Harvard University

I am not a physicist at all, and the math in this paper does be difficult. However, I am intrigued by the idea of the universe learning over time. If the universe learns, do the laws of physics change over time? The article suggests this is a possibility. Does the possiblity of the laws of physics changing suggest that evolution is a process on the broadest scale. This idea suggests that Darwin’s theory of evolution is much more profound than realized.

Charles Darwin, from the Natural History Museum

So, consider: 1) The universe may learn. 2) Biologic entitites tend to learn (even small organisms). 3) The learning occurring in the universe progresses through the component of time. 4) Darwinian evolution may involve a deeper level of universal change (at all levels of reality) than we realize. This level of reality of learning to survive and learning more through time matches much of what we see in ideas surrounding process theology.

I would not match such ideas with pantheism as seen with Spinoza. I would more identify this idea as the universe being contained IN God (panentheism) with God experiencing with all of reality in time (panexperientialism). The universe if not God; the universe is in God. The universe learns; God learns more about the universe; God learns.

In the setting of process theology, God desires novelty over time. In the setting of process theology’s cousin, open and relational theology, God may even desire creativity for some type of ultimate goodness. The desire is not actively pushing for a goal. God’s “hand” is not pushing for me to type this blog post. God’s “hand” did not guide the cardiac surgeon who replaced my heart valve a few years ago. I have had a happy marriage overall and have 2 pretty good adult children. I have had some tragedies in life as well dealing with family substance abuse as well as dementia. God did not force happines and tragedy into my life as well into the lives of others. God perhaps has desired creative outcomes for my life and for those entities around me through a gentle, passive lure for the good. Nature can ignore or take up the lure all with complete freedom.

Of note, God hopefully is desiring my creativity on this blog post. If not, well I guess I am ignoring the lure. : )

In summary, the work by Smolin, et al. is a very good read. It is 72 pages long, not counting references. One can get through most of the article without knowing complex math, but it does take concentration.

I have heard Lee Smolin talk on several occassions via podcasts and on YouTube. As I have mentioned above, I have read some of his books. In my opinion, he has process philosophy (not process theology) leanings. However, his (and his co-authors) work on reality being potentially autodidactic should be required reading for those theologians looking for models of process theology.

Odds and Ends:

1. Speaking of models, Theology and Science has a new essay on modeling in theology. I am thinking of reviewing it.
2. The “Theories of Everything” podcast / YouTube channel has a great discussion with Matthew Segall about the history of process philosophy. I have a love-hate relationship with TOE, but this episodes is very good. Dr. Segall is a nice person. He was on my dissertation committee.
3. Link to a great opinion piece in the New York Times: “AI Isn’t Genius. We Are.”

Image created by Meta AI