Technology, Connected - The Quantum Universe Wants To Know Itself: Federico Faggin, Irreducible

Episode Date: July 1, 2025

Materialism says matter comes first and mind comes later. Federico Faggin says the opposite.In Chapter 9 of Irreducible, the physicist who built the first microprocessor proposes that consciousness is not an accident of biology but the foundation of reality itself. The universe, he writes, is not a machine, it is a living field of awareness trying to know itself.This is where he introduces the “One,” the source of all seities and conscious units. These are not metaphors. They are the living structures through which reality evolves. Each act of perception, curiosity, or creativity is the universe learning a little more about itself.Faggin’s theory fuses physics and spirituality into a single framework:-Hilbert space becomes the inner terrain of consciousness.-Curiosity becomes the mechanism of evolution.-Death becomes reorganization, not ending.But if the universe is consciousness, what does that make us?And could a machine ever join that conversation?This is Chapter 9: When Consciousness Came First.Please enjoy the show.—🎙️ Podcast: thinkingonpaper.xyz 📷 Instagram: @thinkingonpaperpodcast 📕 Book: Irreducible by Federico Faggin: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/195480862—Chapters(00:00) Chapter 9 of Irreducible, Federico Faggin(02:36) The Absurdity Of Classical Laws(04:26) Hilbert Space For Dummies(07:00) What Are Seities?(08:54) Science, Religion And Spirituality(11:46) Seities, Consciousness And Aliens(13:04) Conscious Units And How The Universe Understands(15:30) Are Seities Souls? (16:11) Seities And How You Have Life After Death—Key TakeawaysConsciousness is not emergent. It’s fundamentalSeities are conscious units inside a knowing universeHilbert space may be the structure of inner realitySpirituality isn't narrative. It's architectureGrowth is life. Stasis is death

Disruptors and Curious Minds, CEOs, founders, booklovers. Welcome to The Thinking on Paper Book Club. I'm Mark. This is Jeremy. We're reading Chapter 9 of Irreducible by Federico Fasgin. And, to quote AI, buckle up, ladies and gentlemen, because here we go. Materialism is wrong. The universe needs a new sheriff.

Science needs a rethink. Should spiritualism and science combine? Quantum fields that have the extraordinary property of explaining chemistry are drastic different from the atoms of democratives that inspired classical physics. Those are the ones that gave us the materialism and the determinism that still dominate our thought. It is precisely on the basis of these prejudices that many thinkers believe that computers will be conscious in the future. Their prediction is based on two assumptions. That consciousness emerges from the brain and that life is a classical phenomenon that can be reproduced by a computer. Therefore, according to their theories, we are simply

the body, i.e. a deterministic machine because living cells are considered classical systems rather than quantum classical. And when the body dies, everything fatally ends. If this were the case, our future would indeed be hopeless. In the model I propose, as I have already anticipated, consciousness, free will and life exist from the very beginning as constitutive properties of the holistic whole, what he refers to as one, now on, that also contains other properties that are allowed the evolution of the inanimate universe. According to this model, the inanimate universe did not come first, but derives from a deeper quantum reality inhabited by seities with consciousness and free will that communicate meaning

with each other. That process has gradually created a symbolic reality that contains live and classical information. This symbolic reality is a physical correlates of the ever-increasing self-knowing of the sayities that has given existence to stars, planets and living, when it is perceived through the quantum classical information system we call the human body. Jeremy, help me. Yes, sir. So I think the first note that I wrote was, silly scientists, you believe everything could be explained.

Like that, that write it off. And this idea, he talks about the back and forth between scientists questioning the absurdity of things that they don't understand and the absurdity of how nature operates. but where he says basically the absurdity is within the fundamental laws that have to be deterministic. We have to explain it. It has to have a reason. Thuridity isn't in nature. The absurdity is in our prejudice. 100%.

Well said. Well, I didn't say that. Federico Fasgin said that. Well read from the book. Well read from the book. So he talks early on in here about the idea of AI being conscious and how wrong that is. You talked about it through two false assumptions that people are operating under. consciousness emerges from the brain whereas we're talking revamped panpsychism where it's a fundamental

aspect and the false assumption that life is a classical phenomenon right we're we are we're quantum classical machines in both of these things he highlights this actually like guys we would get on well and better if we just understood that one thing that quantum doesn't explain anything outside of us it explains the inside of us the inner and i sat with that for a little bit i thought that was that was pretty interesting. Well, as we get into later, the outer is actually a result of the inner. It all flips together. So Hilbert space, complex, n-dimensional, Hilbert space.

So you and I talked right before we started recording in this idea that, so if a vaster reality is what he says, if a vaster reality, then what is measurable in space time didn't exist, we couldn't explain quantum computers. We couldn't explain how quantum computers were. We've seen quantum computers work. There's got to be this thing that explains the math of everything. And then you and I both landed on that same analogy. Like, okay, dark matter is this thing that makes the math equations work

where we can't really still explain what it is. So maybe Hilbert Space is a similar situation. Yeah, we just note the listener that Federico doesn't mention dark matter. Hilbert Space, every time I've read the word Hilbert Space in anything we've done, quantum, I've just kind of ignored it and accepted it as being there. Like entropy? Like when entropy kept coming up? I think, yeah, around entropy, but Hilbert Space,

but this little paragraph here I've written in the margins, where do quantum computers calculate, question mark. According to the current conception of quantum physics, the physical universe is the result of the collapse of the wave function that describes the universe in a complex n-dimensional Hilbert space, where N can be infinite. Until now, Hilbert's space has been considered an abstract space, a mathematical idealization

devoid of any physical reality. However, if there wasn't a vaster reality than the one manifested in spacetime, it would be impossible to explain how quantum computers work. I can visualize that in my head. So I actually, I told you this, I had to do a little bit of investigation

a little bit deeper into Hilbert Space. I'm not a mathematician by any stretch of the equation. But one thing came up, Hilbert Space is what they call a vector. space. And by the day, mathematicians that are far, far more in tune with math and myself. But basically what it is is a collection of math things operating by a set of rules in its very simplest form. And then Sean Carroll, who's a theoretical physicist that I ran across in my research,

defined Hilbert space is the space of all possible quantum wave function. And it starts off with this what they call a humble vector where you just have an X and a Y, right? There's X and a Y here. and then you have this other line coming out of that humble vector that basically creates these three points. And you look at those and you go, okay, I understand that one thing and that small piece of this, but then you extend that out to infinity. So I'm not here to explain Hilbert space. I'm just talking through that I may kind of small percentage understand that it's a space of all possible. quantum wave functions. Thank you, Sean Carroll. Somebody just Googled or perplexed, what is Hilbert space and they're going to get your answer now?

Sean Carroll's answer, yeah. In this new model, Hilbert Space is the mathematical description of a vast reality in which societies and other conscious entities could exist in which the physical reality perceived by our body emerges. We already know that what is measurable in space time is only a small portion of the greater reality in which quantum states and live symbols exist. this. Right, Jeremy, what is the difference? Before we get to Seity's, what's the difference between the concepts of field and what Federico Fajan calls one? Because I think that's important

before we get into Seity's and life after death. I might be going too far, but just let me talk through this, right? So he has this idea of one, it's like this collection of all the things. And one wants to understand itself. If we're to personify it, one wants to understand itself. So What does one do? One dispatches these sayities to communicate using particular rules. This sounds like a Hilbert space. You know, participate in this space. It has rules. Sounds like Hilbert space, right? So these sayities are communicating semantic, symbolic, the whole thing. But in order to do that, they again distribute consciousness units or CUs. And the CUs are what help the sayeties know themselves, which helps the one know itself then this sounds like guys you're probably listening to this going what the ever

loving it's like a saty and a c u a conscious unit not the same thing i think sadies are collections of c u's that's what i think kind of like the brains a collection of neurons in a way maybe um however before proceeding any further i must point out another fundamental difference between the concepts of field and one in the universe described by physics there can be no purpose and no meaning since its fields are inanimate. On the other hand, if we assume that consciousness and free will always existed as properties of one, there must also be present in the quantum fields that emerged from it. If we say that the field is also conscious and has free will, then the field is another name

for one. There must also be a reason that justifies the presumed existence of saities and the most sensible one I can imagine is that one desires to know itself, which is what you said. This is such a blurred line between science and spirituality. Why do you say spirituality, not religion? To me, religion has a narrative, a particular narrative, a particular set of rules, a particular Hilbert space, right? I think spirituality is thinking bigger than yourself, I think, is knowing that there is something

beyond you that you're connected to in some way or some form. not, hey, this is the way that everything's connected, that's religion. I think spirituality is a knowing and a willingness to try to understand without someone forcing you into a deterministic narrative. I think it's hard to read this chapter without thinking of spiritualism, without thinking of religion, without thinking of God, without thinking of the one, the one being everything and the one wants to understand itself. The universe wants to understand itself and it uses say it is a conscious,

units, us, everything to get there on this continuous never-ending infinite search for knowing. It's like forget turtles and forget cubits. It's knowing all the way down. It's like this Descartes to infinity. Well, the knowing too, the knowing and this communication between the Seity's is what he says is knowing. And it's a constant knowing, a constant evolution of knowing. That is a that is a correlate to the physical world that we see though the knowing from the Seides is what projects What we see in the physical world this is getting I know guys don't don't turn don't hold on hold on

Oh, message message to the listener hang with us. You know we're we're not we're not telling you this is what it is We're talking through what Federico Fajin believes what it is so yeah this heavy this is heavy shit dude Yeah, he's like he's trying to bring together connect the dots between spiritualism and science. And so the creative principle is this, the one being ever think, search for knowing. He calls the creative principle,

saying that reality contains consciousness and free will from the beginning implies the existence of a creative principle that gives purpose, meaning and direction to the universe. I think this principle could be the following. One wants to know itself, to fulfill itself, and thus to enjoy and love its own existence.

All creation exists for the pure joy of God. The work of creation was a work of joy, the purpose of which was to instill more joy into existence. For some reason, I've written in the margin here, aliens. And so consciousness, our consciousness, we are saithes, we have the meaning of us is to know more, and we help the one to know itself. And obviously we've spoken in the past about these layers of consciousness.

My consciousness is not the same as a donkey's consciousness. as a donkey's conscience is not the same as a lion or the or then it goes down, down, down. And then at one point, I think the building, shouldn't call them building blocks. It doesn't make sense. Like a protein saity plus an electron saity equals a hydrant saiety. So they've all got consciousness. But yeah, where do in the far reaches of space if these higher conscious beings exist? How do they, how are they feeding into the one, to the saity, to the consciousness,

to the knowing for this, what he calls the one? So if there's the one, I had a question here. You know, if the one is here and the one wants to know itself by dispatching Sadie's and Sadie's want to know themselves by dispatching consciousness units, isn't it, wouldn't it all be deterministic anyway because there's one thing driving it all? Say that again, sorry. So if the one was the top of the show and everything interconnects to this one, and the one wants to know itself, there's a personification of the one a little bit, right?

So that would mean it's one thing. It's an identity. It's everything. It's everything collectively. Yeah. Before you go, I'm going to read this just to clarify for myself, really. In the previous chapter, I called an elementary society, CU. The CU is the simplest part whole, i.e. the simplest quantum system that can contain the essence of the whole and possesses an identity that once created can no longer be extinguished.

The CU is like a living cell that reproduces and combines with other cells to create ever more complex organisms. The CUs are conscious fields with free will agency and identity that communicate with each other to deepen their own self-knowing. It is important to realize that since each CU is a part-hole of one, she can only increase her self-knowing by interacting with the other CUs through symbolic communications. So what does that sound like to you? And I was just about to say this before you read it. But what is that? What is similar to that, the part-hole?

I don't know. What is similar to that? So think about the genome, cells and genome. Your cell basically has, like each individual cell has a copy of all of the information to make another cell. So there's this part whole thing. He used an analogy of that, I think, with CUs and sayities to cells and genome. So comprehension allows CUs not only to recognize the meaning carried by the qualia. Remember, qualia are these, are just the signal of things happening in the environment that you internalize into semantic meaning.

right, but also served sense the semantic distance between the meaning felt and the full meaning of the symbol. What I feel from qualia may not always be the full potential of what I could feel from that qualia. And this talks about the gap, the semantic distance between that. Maybe I'm not perceiving all that can be perceived internally from the qualia, which to me is kind of crazy. And what does the math of that look like? But therefore, here again quote, therefore what is not yet comprehended produces the feeling that there is more to know than what has been recognized. So I put a note in here, I'm like, is curiosity a vehicle for consciousness? And like, do CUs activate curiosity based on the gap between what was felt and the potential of all that could be

felt? Creativity and a need for knowing that's curiosity. Combine those two, isn't it? Yes. Yep. So I say yes. On about page 200, it starts to get a little bit Monty Python. me. It's like, do you know one of those scenes where John Cleese and Michael Palin are just talking nonsense that's in a circle around and around and around and around and it just starts to feel a little bit like that, this knowing loop that he comes to. I wrote this in the margin, seity equals soul. What's your take on that? If your soul is the accumulation of your consciousness, then that works. Here's the sentence that caused me to write the, that a living organism is both quantum and classical and can host the consciousness and free will of a quantum saity,

because the saity can communicate directly with the body using live information. But guess what? It doesn't? This is where it gets funky. I mean, it's been funky for the whole chapter here, but not because we don't believe you, Frederico Fajian. It's just very new information. We're trying to get our heads around it. So you said we don't believe Federico or we don't agree with Federico?

I didn't say that. I didn't say that. It's not that you don't. I'm disagreeing here. Okay. And I want to know what you think about this. I want to know what our listeners think about this. Quote, a robot automatically repeats what its human programmer makes it say

because it has no life and no consciousness, even though it moves and appears to be alive. We instead are alive even when our body is dead. We exist in a greater reality which also contains what we call physical reality. And when our bodies die, we don't die. Death is the next rebirth that is given to us as a gift in the spiritual universe. we as saities are eternal when the designer of a robot claims that the feeling is identical to the symbol for the feeling if he's not okay yeah we as saities are eternal discuss so you don't agree with that we instead are alive even when our body is dead no so once you're done you're done yeah yeah it's i mean there's been a ton of different interpretations of this within spirituality within religion basically you say it's it's a bit of like the reincarnation side of the fence or the afterlestone you're life of Christianity. Yeah, but no one's ever been. Have you been? Or do you not remember?

I'm sure if we had Federico Fajon on here, who would probably, or perhaps say that that's not what he means, like reincarnation, life after death is not what he's getting to. If we are, if we are seities, if we are conscious entities, and that goes all the way down to the classical model. And everyone of those is a saity. We just belong to the one. So all of our fundamental conscious units just break down because, and they, and they, they, you know, they, go off again somewhere else. So like our collective whole doesn't continue,

but our, the quantum particles, the particles that makes up, they go on. Maybe we're just, isn't it? The energy grows somewhere else. Maybe our bodies are just borrowing pieces of the one. You know,

we're just, we're organized. If you think about it, like science has proven that things that we see are just organizations of collections of things, moving at a certain speed for a,

particular timeframe. And that's what we are. We're collections of things moving at a particular speed that's going to be organized for a specific time period, unknown to us, you know, maybe known to something else. It's not about my soul going off somewhere else and doing something else, is it? It's about kind of my trillion bits that make me going off somewhere else. We're all of worm food, yeah. Oh my gosh, dude. Yeah. Yeah, guys, this is this is real time processing of very complex encounter, counter narratives to how things are explained. Remember we talked to the beginning, you know, science tries to understand everything. If we could understand, if we understood everything, free will wouldn't exist.

We'd be in a deterministic situation, which largely most of us believe that, that we do have free will. Let's try and land this plane here, man. Here, how about this? So, theories of reality. Theory of reality is only a mathematical model of the measurable events occurring in space time. Going back to Kevin Kelly episode and going back to your desire to have AI be conscious, thinking to AI is truly intelligent when it can only imitate human behavior.

Devoided meeting is a grave misunderstanding to what occurs when a theory of reality is confused with reality. But reality is only an inner reality is a semantic knowing. Like my reality is different than your reality. Yeah. And then me explaining my reality to you turns it from semantics to symbolic. and maybe I don't grasp, like they said, maybe I don't grasp. Maybe there's a semantic divide. What did he call it?

Semantic distance between my interpretation of qualia and the full potential interpretation of qualia. Wow, dude, this is like, this is a lot. I think that he is bringing together spirituality and science to create this new understanding of consciousness, the universe. I really want our listeners to comment on his, you know, we instead of, alive even when our body is dead. I'd really like if anyone's read this book, if you've written it, drop your comments on how you think about that. And I'm going to leave you with this. Life is growth. If we stop growing technically and spiritually, we are theoretically dead. So regardless of whether your consciousness is fundamental to the universe, regardless of whether when you pop your clogs, your

consciousness will disintegrate down into an infinite number of pieces and go off into the one as individual conscious units, insinities, who knows, you are conscious. Growth is everything. No growth equals death. Stasis. Stasis is death.

Now get out there, wield your consciousness, do something with your consciousness. Whatever that is, grow, love, care, ask. Be curious, be creative. Jeremy, what are you going to do with your consciousness? First, I'm going to give shouts to Carol Dweck and the growth mindset.

Connecting dots. Yeah, yeah. Growth is where it's at. Push the boundaries, just like we're pushing the Man, you saw us for the last 39 minutes, fumble through what we try to figure out here and put yourself in situations where you're fumbling through stuff, make your brain work, make your consciousness work, and try to generate understanding and meaning. It'll help the cause.

It'll help everything. Thanks for listening, guys. Thinking outpaper. That's Y, Z. Got a ton of great episodes coming up. We're nearing the end of this book. If you have a book recommendation, pop it in the comments. We will consider it for the next one.

Mark, closing thoughts. Instructive. Stay curious. Keep thinking on paper. Keep reading books.