Algorithmic idealism: what should you believe to experience next?
arXiv:2412.02826 · doi:10.1007/s10701-026-00913-1
Abstract
I argue for an approach to the Foundations of Physics that puts the question in the title center stage, rather than asking "what is the case in the world?". This approach, algorithmic idealism, attempts to give a mathematically rigorous in-principle-answer to this question both in the usual empirical regime of physics and in some more exotic regimes within cosmology, philosophy, and science fiction (but soon perhaps real) technology. I begin by arguing that quantum theory, in its actual practice and in some interpretations, should be understood as telling an agent what they should expect to observe next (rather than what is the case), and that the difficulty of answering this former question from the usual "external" perspective is at the heart of persistent enigmas such as the Boltzmann brain problem, extended Wigner's friend scenarios, Parfit's teletransportation paradox, or our understanding of the simulation hypothesis. Algorithmic idealism is a conceptual framework, based on two postulates that admit several possible mathematical formalizations, cast in the language of algorithmic information theory. Here I give a non-technical description of this view and show how it dissolves the aforementioned enigmas: for example, it claims that you should never bet on being a Boltzmann brain regardless of how many there are, that shutting down computer simulations does not generally terminate its inhabitants, and it predicts the apparent embedding into an objective external world as an approximate description.
arXiv comment32 pages, 2 figures. V2: several clarifications and minor corrections
References in corpus (18)
- Random Numbers Certified by Bell's Theorem
- Relational Quantum Mechanics
- No Signalling and Quantum Key Distribution
- In defense of the epistemic view of quantum states: a toy theory
- Informational derivation of Quantum Theory
- Non-local correlations as an information theoretic resource
- The lesson of causal discovery algorithms for quantum correlations: Causal explanations of Bell-inequality violations require fine-tuning
- How Quantum Mechanics can consistently describe the use of itself
- Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself
- A derivation of quantum theory from physical requirements
- A strong no-go theorem on the Wigner's friend paradox
- Can Bohmian mechanics be made relativistic?
- Why interference phenomena do not capture the essence of quantum theory
- Law without law: from observer states to physics via algorithmic information theory
- What is nonclassical about uncertainty relations?
- The Measurement Problem Is a Feature, Not a Bug--Schematising the Observer and the Concept of an Open System on an Informational, or (Neo-)Bohrian, Approach
- Epistemic Horizons and the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics
- Epistemic Boundaries and Quantum Uncertainty: What Local Observers Can (Not) Predict