181–190 of 285 posts
[flagged]
HN presents a broad and informed audience; there's no reason to call something gibberish before at least cursorily researching it on your own.
[flagged]
We have the Internet. If the parent commenter thought a more digestible summary or paraphrase of "the absolute of all conditionals" would have been helpful, they would have written it that way. If you're frustrated that it's opaque, and you care about understand the chance to do so is as near as googling "Kant absolute of all conditionals". If you don't care about understanding, why complain?
[flagged]
We have the Internet. If the parent commenter thought a more digestible summary or paraphrase of "the absolute of all conditionals" would have been helpful, they would have written it that way. If you're frustrated that it's opaque, and you care about understand the chance to do so is as near as googling "Kant absolute of all conditionals". If you don't care about understanding, why complain?
[flagged]
I understood what the OP meant, since I've read CPR and am broadly familiar with Kant's metaphysics. HN presents a broad and informed audience; there's no reason to call something gibberish before at least cursorily researching it on your own.
[flagged]
Something that most people never consider in these discussions: If you accept the hypothesis that mind is generated by a computation, and that this computation is finite, then the same computation that produces "you" can be performed in different places and at different times. The same computation can be performed inside a simulation, inside a simulation inside a simulation and so on. Whatever environment around you…
Except that your mind is not an isolatable computation - it is influenced by your body, which is in turn influenced by its immediate environment, in turn influenced by the rest of the universe in an ever expanding nested fashion. So if you want to simulate yourself, you have to simulate the universe.
But I think, even then, you could simulate distant stuff at far lower resolution than near stuff, in a way that dropped off in expense very very quickly. You wouldn't have to fully simulate a star I was looking at for instance, in order to represent it to my eye in a way that was indistinguishable from the real thing. you just need a little twinkling thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
and any a priori meddling would be indistinguishable from ' the Standard Model, i.e. that's just how physics works '
Flaming letters in the sky stating "This is a simulation"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understood what the OP meant, since I've read CPR and am broadly familiar with Kant's metaphysics. HN presents a broad and informed audience; there's no reason to call something gibberish before at least cursorily researching it on your own.
Out of curiosity then, what does it mean?
"Why is the sky blue?" -> "Why is the sky?" -> "Why is?"
Such questions, as Kant (and the OP) point out, ultimately hinge upon things not empirically observable (phenomena), but upon noumena instead.
[0]: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-spacetime/#AbsoVsRea...
[1]: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-transcendental-ideal...
Immanuel Kant foresaw all this. In his seminal work "Critique of pure reason" he argues that our pure reason, as opposed to the pure mind, always tries to look for the absolute, the absolute of all conditionals. This leads our reason to look beyond empirically observable objects. Those objects that have their origin only in pure reason is what he calls "ideas". Those ideas can be separated into three categories, name…
As an aside, his proof that a world of objects-in-themselves exists at all is incredibly interesting and provides what in my view has been one of the only compelling answers to the radical skepticism of Hume (the idea that we cannot prove the existence of an external world).
To claim it is a simulation is just overreaching, because there is no real evidence.
To claim its not, that its not possible, is hubris - just because we can't simulate it now doesn't mean in a million years a society following ours wouldn't be able to, and if you say even a society in a billion years would be able to, then you're saying its possible, and if its possible, than you can't say we're not.
I love unanswerable questions. Especially with a little sativa in my bowl. :)