Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Can Evolution Have a ‘Higher Purpose’?

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 132 posts

Re: Can Evolution Have a ‘Higher Purpose’?

#81

Post by DougN7 »

ozy wrote: post #70
DougN7 wrote: post #2

I've always thought the 'living in a simulation' scenario and creationism are pretty much the same thing, if the person that started the simulation felt some sort of rules ought to be followed (for the longevity of the simulation, or whatever reason they might have). That doesn't seem like a stretch - we do that with the Sim games, and we're hardly brilliant.

If we are living in a simulation, it is a simulation of atoms, or quantum fields, or perhaps something deeper behind that. That got started with enormous energy in the form of hot dense quark gluon plasma. From there the rest follows. It is not a simulation of humans. We have zero indication there are rules at a higher level than the quantum or gravity. Like rules on what you ought to do in the bedroom. Also earth no…

You're taking some mighty large liberties defining what our simulation is, and how it started. A simulation can begin with any state, including a hundred years ago with already written books and simulated Big Bang background radiation.

There is no difference.

Re: Can Evolution Have a ‘Higher Purpose’?

#82

Post by roywiggins »

cortesoft wrote: post #23
estefan wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Both the Intelligent Alien and Simulation ideas just push the question of 'purpose' up a level They do, but while the 'kid in his garage running the simulation' may have no purpose, I guess the article author is suggesting that in a simulation our 'purpose' is to let the experiment play out and entertain this transcendental 'kid'.

Right, but what gives the purpose created by the garage-kid any sway? What gives garage-kid the authority to set my purpose? Creating something doesn't automatically mean our purpose is what the creator says it is; I think most people don't subscribe to the belief that kids should always do whatever their parents think is important once they are adults. So in the end, what does it mean if the garage-kid created us to…

Even worse, what if the purpose is malignant. What if we're part of a intradimensional torture device, or something? That seems even worse than purposelessness. Or we're all in Rick Sanchez's pocket universe spaceship battery.

Re: Can Evolution Have a ‘Higher Purpose’?

#83

Post by DonaldFisk »

ozy wrote: post #74
DonaldFisk wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a number of points to make. The Many-worlds interpretation of QM does not mean that different universes have different fundamental constants. If that were the case, the fundamental constants could change in value each time a quantum measurement took place. The universe might be infinite in extent (e.g. Einstein-de Sitter) even though at any time you can only see a finite part of it, so even though the probabil…

> but I can't see any way that NPCs in a virtual reality/simulated universe can be conscious If in the future we have even faster computers, and ability to scan all the molecules in your brain (at good enough resolution, but not beyond Heisenberg). Then we simulate the chemistry going on. Do we now have consciousness in a computer? It is hard to see how billions of neurons together create consciousness. Just like how…

The previous discussion with naasking is here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11823781

At this point I have nothing further to add.

Re: Can Evolution Have a ‘Higher Purpose’?

#84

Post by roywiggins »

cortesoft wrote: post #78
woofyman wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're going to use simulated experiments to prove or disprove we're in a simulation? Based on our simulated understanding of the physical laws of our simulated universe?

There are people working on ways we could prove or disprove we are in a simulation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis#Testing_...

There are tests that would be evidence for simulation, but not really any that are evidence against. Just because we can't see evidence of the simulation where we look doesn't mean it's not a better simulation than we can probe, or our gods are mucking with our perceptions to make every test come out negative. There aren't any experiments that would actually falsify the hypothesis that our entire world is a fabrication because those experiments could also be fabricated.

This is true for finding proof of God: A spectacular miracle is pretty good evidence, but lack of a miracle can't ever disprove the theory.

Re: Can Evolution Have a ‘Higher Purpose’?

#85

Post by DonaldFisk »

roywiggins wrote: post #80
DonaldFisk wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a number of points to make. The Many-worlds interpretation of QM does not mean that different universes have different fundamental constants. If that were the case, the fundamental constants could change in value each time a quantum measurement took place. The universe might be infinite in extent (e.g. Einstein-de Sitter) even though at any time you can only see a finite part of it, so even though the probabil…

> The Many-worlds interpretation of QM does not mean that different universes have different fundamental constants. If that were the case, the fundamental constants could change in value each time a quantum measurement took place. You can replace Many-Worlds with Eternal Inflation and you get an infinity of bubble universes, and my understanding is those universes would span every possible set of constants: https://e…

In other words, if you replace what I was discussing, and what I assumed the OP was as well, with something quite different, my original point no longer stands.

Re: Can Evolution Have a ‘Higher Purpose’?

#86

Post by roywiggins »

DonaldFisk wrote: post #85
roywiggins wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Many-worlds interpretation of QM does not mean that different universes have different fundamental constants. If that were the case, the fundamental constants could change in value each time a quantum measurement took place. You can replace Many-Worlds with Eternal Inflation and you get an infinity of bubble universes, and my understanding is those universes would span every possible set of constants: https://e…

In other words, if you replace what I was discussing, and what I assumed the OP was as well, with something quite different, my original point no longer stands.

I mean that you don't need Many-Worlds to generate the requisite multiverse to explain the apparent fine-tuning of the observed constants. Eternal inflation does the job nicely, and the argument that our universe isn't so unlikely applies exactly as well to a Many-Worlds multiverse as it does to an Inflationary one.

Re: Can Evolution Have a ‘Higher Purpose’?

#87

Post by DonaldFisk »

roywiggins wrote: post #86
DonaldFisk wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In other words, if you replace what I was discussing, and what I assumed the OP was as well, with something quite different, my original point no longer stands.

I mean that you don't need Many-Worlds to generate the requisite multiverse to explain the apparent fine-tuning of the observed constants. Eternal inflation does the job nicely, and the argument that our universe isn't so unlikely applies exactly as well to a Many-Worlds multiverse as it does to an Inflationary one.

Everett's many-worlds interpretation is nothing to do with fine-tuning, but as you point out, eternal inflation might be worth looking at. I found this paper, which looks interesting: https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0407213v3.pdf

My interest in the subject predates this - when actively researching the subject I developed a scalar-tensor theory consistent with Dirac's Large Number Hypothesis, and preferred the idea that there's only one possible set of physical laws. I was never happy with the Anthropic Principle.

Re: Can Evolution Have a ‘Higher Purpose’?

#88

Post by danielam »

danielam wrote: post #73

Lots of muddled thinking, but some good points and a good start. There are a couple of things in particular that I think are interesting and worth drawing attention to. None of these are religious ideas per se; they are philosophical. The first is the the idea of telos. Telos in the philosophical sense refers to that toward which something is ordered. It is frequently misunderstood as something identical with conscio…

Sorry, had to run. Errata:

"The first is the idea of telos."

"conceived of as extrinsically imposed by a divine intellect and not something intrinsic to things"

"he will not have escaped"

"This metaphysics has caused a proliferation"

"this metaphysics is the only contender"

Re: Can Evolution Have a ‘Higher Purpose’?

#89

Post by danielam »

cortesoft wrote: post #27
milesf wrote: post #16

Do you think it's reasonable that conversations like this are fine on HN, but anytime I bring up Christian thought on the matter I am pressured to "not talk religion"? Wrestling with these top shelf Maslow's questions like "why am I/we here?", "what is the meaning of life" and other big life questions are common among all of us. So why the willingness to conjecture that (we live in a simulation | aliens may have seed…

In order for discussion to have any meaning, the things we claim have to be 'falsifiable'; there has to be SOME observable consequence of a claim being either true or false, even if we aren't able to currently observe it. So, for religious discussions, what can we possibly discuss? Take any religious claim, and when we ask 'What observation could you make that would demonstrate to you that the claim is false?', the a…

"In order for discussion to have any meaning, the things we claim have to be 'falsifiable'; there has to be SOME observable consequence of a claim being either true or false, even if we aren't able to currently observe it."

Is that claim falsifiable?

Re: Can Evolution Have a ‘Higher Purpose’?

#90

Post by danielam »

charonn0 wrote: post #79
athenot wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not hindu but I won't force my hindu friends to renounce the strength of their beliefs as a prerequisite for discussion. I'm not atheist but I won't force my atheist friends to admit that there is a God as a prerequisite for discussion. I think it's possible to have fruitful discussions while holding respect for other belief systems.

I mean putting aside your own beliefs, not requiring others to put aside theirs. People who are not willing to entertain the possibility that they're wrong (a reasonable definition of having faith, IMHO) will either exclude themselves from the discussion or turn it into a sermon.

That should apply equally to political, ideological, etc. positions as well, and yet...
Post reply on HN