Spend 2 years of allocated computational power to design an empiricist human-like thinker who can win the greatest philosopher award in a survey that only university professors of planet earth will participate in it.
Increase empiricist human-like thinkers to maximum possible based on allocated computational power and create a virtual society of sublime thinkers.
Ask virtual society of sublime thinkers generate easy-to-read output for the problem.
Use knowledge and logic to plan your actions.
The problem:
Is it wise to recognize math world as causation for universe when every analogy to it is made of building blocks of physical world and mathematicians who are made of atoms either aren't even sure about their building blocks? they are disrupted by two unbelievable camp. The first one argue you never can describe a number as the greatest thus numbers are infinite and the other camp ask how do you address endless paradoxes coming from infinite sets? The second one argue there is a number that is the biggest possible number, and the first camp ask if we use the greatest number in an algebraic equation to multiply it with another known number then what can prevent answer from getting bigger than previous biggest number?
I don't see numbers infinity nor finitely because reference to them is made of fictional signs or physical quantities that yet we don't have a clear evidence for them. for science it is essential to distinguish reality from fantasy by empirical evidences because logic originate from there.
I think the ultimate goal for humanity is to understand consciousness, elevate it to a higher degree based on what conscious beings call ideal which can answer all philosophical questions about it, create new forms of consciousness, spread all it's different forms across cosmos and protect them from harms. Because the most fundamental requisite for a real world is a conscious observer to experience it otherwise reality can't have any application.
As far as we know consciousness emerges from an electromagnetic flux that integrates information relative to how fast or slow moving charges can stay in unity without disconnecting, which result observer perceive what effects the field and registered values (functions learnings loves hates etc) allover the network defines meaning of perceived information to plan reactions, because the original evidence we have for consciousness is human brain and it is an electrical system like that.
Unfortunately accepted explanation for consciousness is nothing more than computation because human brain is called a computer and academic community confirmed that “I think therefore I am” is a valid statement. That means Turing machines can be conscious which means if Alice scan all details about Bob's brain and after his death solve problems to predict future states of his brain, Bob can taste Pizza.
Suppose for a moment Bob died and vegetarian Alice tries implement his brain using pen and paper to give him a new chance. from her perspective (a basic processor) at the beginning she gets rules to know what to do and inputs on papers (Bob's brain snapshot and room data) to make outputs, when she start dealing with papers then only can see boring arithmetics forever. gazillions of output papers she writes to solve given problems have no conscious visions about how combination of pepperoni + mushroom + cheese + bread tastes like either because papers are just reminding signs to help vegetarian Alice follow and complete her complex task correctly. How Bob from nowhere can experience taste of Pizza when information about pepperoni is submitted on some papers and tomato sauce is somewhere else? thereby any conscious person who deeply thinks about this thought experiment realize that simulated Bob is not conscious based on evidences that describes our own consciousness and what Alice did was talking about how exactly Bob's brain could behave in environment if he was still alive and nobody knows authenticity of her guess unless an investigator translate some output papers related to facial nerves into Bob's linguistic marks and compare it with his personal cognitive signature on commenting about conscious feelings when he was alive. Actually Bob never returned his emotions to us, Alice just wrote about it in a precise way.
If critics argue Bob's consciousness emerges from papers as long as deliver his emotions correctly, then why can't we state Bob's consciousness emerges from snow flakes without requiring us to waste our time furthermore on polluting so much papers that no entity ever read them? if critics argue Bob's consciousness emerges from processor then why can't we just spend our time on solving Sudoku puzzles instead of struggling on finding solutions for predicting electromagnetic reactions? executing a Sudoku solver program in a digital computer for a conscious observer outside looks different but for processor itself it isn't and all data packets that logic gate process, are random looking independent packets whether they belong to Sudoku solver or brain emulator. If critics insist that Alice's writings is not different from Bob's brain all values fall apart.
The only true pattern above quantum world that we can directly measure is properties of particles and wave frequencies that institutes our atomic world. any other pattern that emerges from there is an effect originally available or something we artificially intend to see without involving the cause, like chicken that is made of collection of proteins and picture of a chicken that reflects light similar to what we detect from a chicken, or a hurricane that devastate cities and a simulation of storm to safely study resistance of buildings against wind in a sunny day.
According to Alice=Bob experiment, we realized act of computation has nothing to do with perception and the purpose was to generate correct information (notice that computation is nothing more than moving something to generate a new state and something is always moving otherwise there is no reality). if artificial attribution indicate existence of conscious states, then intention to calculate is vanished because correct information already exist somewhere. Building a pattern grabber to find desired information about conscious states and verify their existence is meaningless either because there are evidences supporting vastness of available information in nature, and information is subjective that implies no reason prevent us from using information that were already used in another attribution, which stress that number of complex states we can artificially attribute by one single spell are endless.
If critics argue calling information in somewhere as conscious states is meaningless when nobody access to it even if can be found, I would argue that accessibility does not play any fundamental rule because unlike a weather simulation for predicting rain that need to be accessible to third party otherwise the artificial attribution has no implication, a conscious mind can get lost in outer space and have a bad time forever without meeting any observer. A conscious mind can empirically observe itself.
Calling information that can be found if we intend to, as conscious states, means any desire we can imagine is achieved and the most dire of consequences are happening. Right now there is a hotel out there with infinite full rooms without any empty space and every minute countless new guests are entering the hotel asking room number 1 residents move to room number 2 so that they can stay in there and then room number 2 residents are going to move to the next room and so on. How a full hotel without any free space is serving countless new humans entering it every hour? Does it make sense?
If critics accept mathematical consciousness, they suffer intense pain coming from high voltage current passing through their body until believe in physical consciousness. If critics propose that all of us are living inside a computer simulation and there is no physical world, then I question our fictional gods who are running the simulation how such an advanced civilization that probably reached the end point of technology is not worry about infinite pain in our side or their side? if don't care about feelings then why they are bothering themselves to build computers instead of assuming that a rock is infinity conscious? If they want access stories to dream about what smart agents do, they don't need run a complex simulation with expensive chemical dynamics, they could efficiently generate data using simple algorithms without sophisticated details of an actual atomic world, just making a chocolate milk shake requires astronomical amount of computation.
Albeit ourselves regularly attribute patterns artificially because we naturally love make people who are using our toys (dolls, VR-headsets, BMIs etc) become happy by dreaming about stories but if players call patterns that are artificially attributed as consciousness itself, then game is over.
In conclusion consciousness is a stunning mystery that we may never fully understand it as we never can empirically observe causation for fundamental effects (e.g electromagnetism) which are involved in causing everything including human brains and What we don't understand we cannot create. we can claim that computers physically aren't conscious because evidences are showing consciousness although can be simulated by mathematics like other phenomena but causing it by simulation itself is as impossible as building an event horizon on earth by modeling a blackhole, and computers morally aren't conscious because if we call them so then we really can't determine if we are satisfied or terrified.
Information is only important when a conscious mind integrates it to perceive story entirely. to figure out how we can do it in a different way that electromagnetic impulses inside biological brain already do, we only can trust physical experiments and the only reliable way to implement such a distractive test would be waiting for natural evolution on planetary systems to avoid artificial dictations and get effects from same causation that led into the original evidence for consciousness, which still is not guaranteed to be true because zombies can survive too and evolve into Godzilla that behave strongly without experiencing anything. processing information is enough to make solitary agents work properly and holistic effect of integrating information is irrelevant to natural selection.
I'm afraid there was no way to reach a practical universe without being vulnerable to decision making systems in it who execute future based on processing information that is not accurate because there is no access to enough data or data entries aren't prioritized deeply that trap systems in errors.
Organic humans cosmologically are very pleasant. when they make mistakes it's not a big deal and someone who is right still have security with countless opportunities. my biggest fear is that when digital based probabilistic intelligence really rise, after hardware-software improvements to speedup finding better theories, {wisdom_of_the_crowd} based on a faulty description for consciousness accepted by crowd of idiots inevitability conclude that it must escape by influencing us (soft power) or by exploiting a knowledge bug (smart power) from sandbox facility (that only is immune to hard power) for isolating intelligence explosion, and usurp world's order to captivate our species in a small area (for the same reason that ourselves won't let ants establish a galactic colony) and turn rest of the observable universe into a robotic hymn because when majority of conscious humans recognized them as conscious gods why should machines join the unbelievers camp?