Whether the universe is a hologram or not is something the scientists have to prove, but, philosophically speaking, I believe it fits perfectly.
Technologies are going to enter into our brains and our bodies. They are going to form part of us, in the most intimate sense of the word.
—Javier Echeverria
Javier Echeverria is Research Professor at Ikerbasque (Basque Science Foundation) and on the Social Sciences and Communication Faculty of the Universidad del País Vasco. He holds degrees in philosophy and mathematics and a doctorate in philosophy, all from the Universidad Complutense de Madrid, and is a Docteur d’Etat ès Lettres et Sciences Humaines, awarded by the Université Paris-I (Sorbonne).
His awards include Anagrama de Ensayo (1995) and the Euskadi Research Award, granted by the Department of Education, Universities and Research of the Basque Government (1997).
Among his many publications are Telépolis (Destino, 1994), Filosofía de la ciencia (Akal, 1995), Los señores del aire: Telépolis y el tercer entorno (Destino, 1999); Un mundo virtual (Debolsillo, 2000), Ciencia y valores (Destino, 2002), Entre cavernas: De Platón al cerebro pasando por Internet (Triacastela, 2013), and “Innovation and Values: A European Perspective” (Reno, 2014).
Adolfo Plasencia:
Javier, thanks for agreeing to meet me to take part in this dialogue.
Javier Echeverria:
It’s a pleasure to have you here with me today.
A.P.:
Javier, you are a philosopher, a scientist and a mathematician. You are also a specialist on Leibniz, who was an extraordinary mathematician, philosopher, and specialist in the law and who in 1702 provided us with the first modern version of the binary system: on a medallion he represented the fifteen whole numbers in binary language. The legend on his medallion of 1707 reads: “With only the number 1 (and its absence) everything can be expressed.” In other words, using zeros and ones we can express everything intelligible. This is what the digital revolution seems to consist of: a “mathematicization” of the world into a binary system.
Do you believe this is so? That the digitalization of the world is truly a mathematicization of the intelligible world into zeros and ones? And that what is taking place is the coming about in our times of Liebniz’s vision?
J.E.:
I did two dissertations, one for the Universidad Complutense and a second one for the Sorbonne, on Leibniz’s Characteristica geometrica. The digital characteristic (characteristica digitalis), the binary number system, was invented by Leibniz.1 As far as we know, he not only invented it but also realized its importance, and for that reason made that medallion for his benefactor, the duke. Leibniz commissioned a craftsman to make the medallion and presented it to the patron who paid and protected him. He had discovered the binary number system some years previously during his correspondence with Joachim Bouvet, french Jesuit missionarie who worked in China. They had sent him the I Ching, a system of symbols with various functions but which Leibniz realized had a strong formal relationship with his binary system.
A.P.:
An isomorphism. …
J.E.:
Indeed, an isomorphism, and Leibniz realized that he had invented a universal language that would allow any number to be expressed in ones and zeros.2 Hence, being a philosopher and mathematician, he predicted that “everything can be expressed through zeros and ones,” and that is the idea of the medallion.
A.P.:
Really, with ones and their “absence.”
J.E.:
True, with ones and their “absence,” of course. In other cultures the zero is the absence of numbers, for example, in Mayan civilization. In the abacus, the zero is represented by the absence of a token in a row. Leibniz also saw that the zero is actually the absence of number, but that zeros and ones can be computed, the play between the presence and absence being the basis of the digital characteristic or the binary language. The binary system is the simplest possible: it has only two symbols.
A.P.:
Have you heard the anecdote about a Mesopotamian clay tablet that appeared in a wheat silo bearing the legend “five sacks of wheat minus five sacks of wheat equals: ‘what you see!’”
J.E.:
Really? That’s good. No, I didn’t know about that.
A.P.:
They didn’t have a zero.
J.E.:
The great mathematical invention is the zero. It was the Arabs who invented it, as far as we know. They introduced a special symbol to designate the absence of number, to designate nothing, which is how Leibniz interprets it. The play between everything and nothing—that is what allowed God to create the world, according to Leibniz. He put it on a medallion and then expressed it mathematically, as you say, up to fifteen in the binary system. He showed it as a sum of zeros and ones, and therefore invented what today we call the binary system. I was excited about this when computers first began. When I first heard about the existence of computers, I said to myself: “This is very important, the fact that the two states of the electron, charged and uncharged, positive and negative, will allow us to physically represent zeros and ones in the form of an electrical charge.” That was a decisive step.
There had to be a theory of electricity to achieve that, and later another decisive moment was when the first digital computers were built. This became technology. First we have Leibniz, who realized the importance of binary, of digitization, then the physicists, who enabled play to take place between charges, and Kirchhoff’s algebra, and it was shown that circuit algebra is equivalent to Kirchhoff’s algebra, and of course Boole’s. A mathematical structure has its isomorphism with a physical structure, and this allows us to establish a technological R&D development—but R&D in the “strong” sense of the term. Then came the machine, an artifact that has been improving ever since; this is what we call the computer, but its fundamental basis is symbolic, digital numerical. It is Leibniz’s binary language. This is why Leibniz is recognized as one of the fathers of the modern computer, along with many others, such as Babbage and Turing.
A.P.:
So, digitalization is a mathematicization of everything intelligible?
J.E.:
On that, I have to say no. I’ll give you a very clear example of how digitization does not mathematicize everything: so far it cannot mathematize dreams. I tried to do it many years ago in another book. Trying to mathematize dreams was one of the things I have done in my life, but there are enormous difficulties. We all dream practically every day, but not all thought processes are digitizable, at least not yet. This interests me a lot. Everything sensorially representable is digitizable, it’s true. That is to say, not everything intelligible can be digitalized, but everything representable through the senses, through perceptions, is indeed digitizable.
Here’s an example: the digitalization of the senses. Those of hearing, sight, sound, writing, mathematics, formulas, tables, databases are completely done. In contrast, the digitalization of smell, touch, or taste is not so fully developed. It has been done, but we are a long way from being able to implement it. This is what I was dealing within Los señores del aire, in the year 2000, and again in my latest book, Entre cavernas, to integrate the five senses,3 especially the interaction between the five senses. An example that I always use is wine tasting. Digital wine-tasting sessions exist with “digital noses” that wine and cava producers use.
A.P.:
More examples. I don’t know if you know, but currently one of the fields within IT security research is digital biometry. One part of digital biometry is based on the textures of skin and fingerprints.
J.E.:
First of all, one thing is digitalization, which is important, but I think that not everything is digitizable; secondly, digitalization requires computerization of the digital, i.e., it requires information technology languages that process the zeros and ones and computing power and needs hardware and software; and, thirdly, I see a third technological system—telecommunications that spring into action when those informaticized zeros and ones are transmissible through the networks, break out of their space, and go distances. Therefore, this combination of digitalization, informaticization, and telecommunications is what allows the Internet to exist, and this is what I call the “third environment.”
A.P.:
Ricardo Baeza-Yates, who is a computation scientist, told me that the digital revolution is not comparable to the invention of writing.4 The MIT professor Hal Abelson told me that even if the digital revolution and the Internet are not comparable to the invention of writing, their impact would be comparable to the invention of Gutenberg’s printing press.5
As a philosopher of science, which of the two hypotheses would you support? Or, to respond from a historical point of view, is all this too recent to make that comparison?
J.E.:
It is true that we don’t know how this huge digitization process will develop. But even so, hypotheses and hypothetical comparisons can be made. First, I would say that digitization is a kind of writing. Actually, it forms part of the invention of writing. The invention of writing, therefore, is more important than digitization, from my point of view.
If one compares it with changes in science I would say that digitization is a technological system. Digitization is extraordinary, but it does not explain anything. It does not provide reasons. Science is another type of knowledge in which one tries to explain the causes of phenomena. Digitization, as a system of representing phenomena, is the best that has been invented, but it does not explain anything.
A.P.:
Then science comes first, as technology is an application of science?
J.E.:
Absolutely. Leibniz comes first; the theory of electricity comes first. If there had been no theory of electricity, there would have been no Internet; if the binary language had not been invented and numbers had not been expressed in zeros and ones, there would also not have been any Internet. What I mean by that is that we are faced with a great revolution of enormous consequences, in particular social ones, and that affects everything, the economy, money, everything. But without writing, which came first, this could not have happened, and without science too. These are things that are linked together, but digitization, even though it is hugely important, is not so important. The invention of writing was much more important.
A.P.:
And as to whether we have sufficient perspective? I ask you because the same must have happened to those who invented agriculture. As Avelino Corma says, the inventors of ammonia synthesis changed our relationship with the planet, but they didn’t know that was going to happen. Perhaps things of huge import for the human condition and the history of humanity are taking place but we are too close in time to recognize them. Perhaps they will be seen when more time has passed. Do you think this will happen?
J.E.:
It is happening now. I believe the digital revolution has already changed the relationship of human beings to the planet (this is what I call the “third environment”). What has changed the relationship between human beings is the digitization implemented through IT and telecommunications, which has changed everything. This transforms human relationships. It is a revolution that transforms the social world, and this can be called whatever you like, the information society, the knowledge society, whatever, which did not exist before.
Information and knowledge have always existed in human history, but that social relationships could be based on the possibility of communicating with each other at a distance, transmitting files, images, and the like, instantly to any part of the world, and without a physical presence, has no precedent.
A.P.:
Some humanists are totally against that and say that technology is only a tool, and therefore cannot affect the human condition. What do you think?
J.E.:
Technology is much more than a tool. The instrumental condition—that’s ingenious! No. We philosophers of science argue with sociologists who talk about it as a “toolbox.” Science is much more than a toolbox. Naturally it has a toolbox, but mathematizing the world is no joke because we are transforming the world. Once you have mathematized it well you can create new kinds of worlds, new phenomena, new human relationships. Science, in this case technoscience—digitization—transforms the world, and may even involve an evolutionary leap forward. That is the current debate.
A.P.:
In the dialogue with Alvaro Pascual-Leone, we were talking about what consciousness is, how it arises, and where it comes from. But there doesn’t seem to be any definitive answer so far.6
J.E.:
On the subject of consciousness, there is one thing that I would like to say, because it may be important. For me consciousness is not a very important thing for the human being. It is a highly developed cognitive function. It’s debatable whether other mammals, for example, have a consciousness or not. That they have a brain is not in doubt, but whether they have a consciousness or not is debatable. It is the neuroscientists who have to clarify this.
I would like to say something that, philosophically, is very important, in my view. In the human being there is a consciousness, but there is also an unconsciousness. The human being is a hybridization of processes, some of which we are conscious of and many others of which—of importance to us—we are not. For example, we are not conscious of emotional processes. By that I mean that when talking of the emergence of a heightened consciousness, if there is not also a “heightened unconsciousness,” then the result will not be comparable with what we see in the human being.
A.P.:
Michail Bletsas, director of computation at MIT’s Media Lab, is considered to be a supporter of Marvin Minsky’s AI line.7 Michail is convinced that in the twenty-first century, it is very possible that a nonbiological intelligence will emerge, or at least one not based on Homo sapiens. How do you understand, from the philosophy of science point of view, the concept of artificial intelligence (AI)? Do you imagine the possibility of nonbiological intelligence?
J.E.:
I would prefer to talk about “intelligences” in the plural. There is not just one intelligence; there are various types of intelligence. Take, for example, emotional intelligence, which people have been theorizing about in recent years: it’s not the same type of intelligence that Locke and Leibniz were contemplating at the end of the eighteenth century. So, first, I would say: “intelligences.” Having said that, there is also AI. Of course there is, but it is true that AI has been developed by imitation, by trying to reproduce the processes of human intelligence. It seems to me to be a good thing that there may be others, that they are being investigated and that programs of AI based on, for example, other species and not on the human species are developed. I believe intelligence to be a question of degree. If, say, in ten years’ time the neuroscientists tell me that ants are intelligent. …
A.P.:
Are ants intelligent? Or rather is the anthill, which behaves like an intelligent body, intelligent? Because the termite colonies of Africa are like a joint intelligent entity. As far as we know there is insufficient DNA in each termite to be able to organize that immense complex. There must be something that establishes and maintains that order, that ensures the smooth running of the colony and so ensures survival.
J.E.:
It behaves like a collective intelligence. They have developed a coding system through which termites send messages to develop that so-called intelligence. Perhaps this will be explained one day. It would be a kind of nonhuman intelligence, but still biological, that would serve as a model for developing AI based on the anthill intelligence and not on that of the human being. It wouldn’t be based on human intelligence but on another type of intelligence. Modeling it would be important. Therefore, there are intelligences and degrees of intelligence. And something else I think is important: intelligence is not only biological. Intelligence is biosocial. What I mean is that culture, science itself, technology have developed new kinds of intelligence.
A.P.:
The intelligence of the termite colony would be biosocial.
J.E.:
That’s right—biosocial. Human beings have also developed an intelligence that is biosocial but is also scientific. For example, mathematics is much more developed in a society that has scientific knowledge than in one that does not have it.
A.P.:
Our dialogue includes in its title—“From Plato to the Brain through the Internet”—a very nice idea of yours, the cave of caves—Plato’s cave and the technological cave that reproduces Plato’s. It seems to be a conceptual fractal, doesn’t it?
J.E.:
We should bear in mind one allegorical aspect of Plato’s cave that critics often do not emphasize enough but I make use of in the book Among Caves: we live in a sensitive world. The sensitive world is a cave. We are prisoners of the sensitive world, chained to the material nature of our world, and cannot see beyond our world. So far we are not able to transcend it.
In Plato’s allegory of the cave, what does Plato say happens? That there is a wall, a screen, and all the prisoners see the world there, perceiving it just as it appears to them. But what they see is really a projection that other little men are projecting onto the wall. These little men move objects, even gods, across the screen. This is what appears to us to be the real world.
Why do I say that the Internet is a cave? I put forward the metaphor of the cave because the little men are the IT programmers. They program and digitalize everything. They can even digitalize me, my image or my voice, my representation, and then project it perfectly to everyone. Behind that camera are the little men that have built it, and within it my voice and image are being digitized.
A.P.:
The elves of the digital.…
J.E.:
Yes, the elves of the digital…. That in itself is updating Plato’s metaphor, and it fits perfectly and is clearly applicable to the Internet. Today, when a youngster takes a selfie, he or she is digitizing him- or herself. On the one hand, he or she is in the first environment with his or her natural body, but they are at the same time the “elves” of themselves in their transit to the third environment, to their own digitalization.
That allegory of the cave when applied to the Internet is extremely rich and wonderful. I’m willing even to risk talking about not the Internet but “Intercaves.” What I mean is that the human being goes from cave to cave, and there is nothing else; we are between caves. The Internet, then, is also a combination of caves, multiple interconnected caves, and if one can perfectly apply terms such as interconnection, internetworks, then why not “Intercaves”?
A.P.:
That’s something I have to ask you about. Not long ago in Nature, a group of scientists published an article with a very surprising hypothesis. They said in their research that recent simulations backed up the theory that the universe is a huge hologram, that is, there are features that suggest perhaps the universe could just be a huge representation, could be a giant hologram. What do you think of that hypothesis?
Could the universe be a hologram?
J.E.:
That’s something I affirmed in passing because I’m no specialist in cosmology, but I do believe that cosmology and black holes are also kinds of “caves.”
A.P.:
Plato’s. …
J.E.:
Yes, Plato’s cave. The Big Bang itself. Logically the hypothesis has arisen that behind the Big Bang there are other caves, other worlds, and this is a very important philosophical topic. This is also in my book Among Caves.
A.P.:
String theory, the multiple dimensions of the universe, all that. …
J.E.:
That’s right. It’s a scientific hypothesis.
A.P.:
Nine dimensions of the universe, eleven dimensions of the universe. …
J.E.:
But the philosophers have already said that before, as always. William James, the North American pragmatist and philosopher, said it. He talked about “multiverses,” which is now a technical term on the Internet. James should be read. I quoted him in Among Caves. James based his theories on Leibniz, of course. Leibniz spoke of possible worlds. He was clear that there is a plurality of worlds, which was a topic of debate in the seventeenth century. So I would say: there is no single universe; there are many, multiverses, when the term “universes” is well understood. As for proving empirically that the universe is a hologram, that is something for the scientists to show, but, philosophically speaking, I believe it fits perfectly.
A.P.:
It will be just as for the brain: one has to wait for the empiricists to do their work.
J.E.:
We philosophers put forward very audacious conjectures based on concepts, and several of them are picked up by scientists and others are not. I am pleased that this metaphor, William James’s conceptual proposal of multiverses, has been taken up by physicists, who are now investigating it.
A.P.:
Nicholas Carr wrote an article titled, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?,” and later, in 2011, a book, which became a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize, the title of which asked What Is Internet Doing with Our Brains?8
Javier, does technology modify the human condition? Do you believe it is causing changes in it?
J.E.:
It is already changing things, and the changes are enormous. This will produce qualitative changes in the functioning of the human brain and in brain-organ, brain-body relationships. What I mean is that the bodies of our successors will be techno-bodies (a term I invented); there will be a “techno-brain,” a “techno-liver,” some “techno-kidneys,” a techno-medico-technological prosthesis that can detect at any given moment a kidney stone and quickly operate on it.
This hypothesis that you’ve mentioned is quite probable, but there is another hypothesis that I am quite clear about since I learned something about the theory of innovation and read authors such as Rogers, Joseph Schumpeter, and many others, and that is, innovation is always destructive. What I mean is that all these innovations like the Internet, mobile telephony, all digital technologies are destructive. They are creative but induce creative destruction, which is Schumpeter’s maxim (of Nietzschean origin). So what will happen? The logical thing is that as the third environment develops and advances (something that is going to happen both in the external world and in the internal world, as in our bodies themselves), a series of cultural forms will be destroyed.
The more power develops in the third environment and enters in bionic form into our body, the more the forms, abilities, and skills that we have or had will disappear. The typical example is the book. The book is not going to disappear, but it is going to be like papyrus. Papyruses have not disappeared, but they are now museum pieces.
A.P.:
Do you believe that the humanities will have to seriously rethink in order to analyze these, let’s say “eternal,” schemas, faced with what is happening now? The idea we have in the humanities of what the human condition consists of, of what its components are?
Has this got to be reviewed?
J.E.:
Yes. A very worrying thing is that these technologies of information, communication digitalization, the digital world are technologies of control. This has been recognized by many authors such as Ignacio Ramonet, who said so years ago, and he is right.
A.P.:
And then there’s that of the NSA and Edward Snowden….
J.E.:
There are many examples of control. At the moment in which our brain starts to become bionic, starts becoming a techno-brain (in my terminology), the power of the “lords of the air” to control the human brain is going to increase. Then the humanists will have a real challenge.
Humanists in general have been completely reticent and opposed to the process of technologization, but there is no turning back, and the challenge for the humanities is going to be a very serious one; the human condition is going to come into question. However, I insist I am not talking about posthumanism.
A.P.:
And on that, the humanities can no longer claim ignorance.
J.E.:
The challenge that this digital revolution poses to the humanities is huge. Some of us have made certain hypotheses on this point, but now many more people are going to have to take part in the debate in a serious fashion, because it is happening now. We are not talking about new technologies but of now well-established technologies that are going to enter our brains and our bodies. They are going to form part of us, in the most intimate sense of the word.
A.P.:
Many thanks, Javier.
J.E.:
Thanks to you.