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

The Last Question

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–169 of 169 posts

Re: The Last Question

#161

Post by projektfu »

axytol wrote: post #90
TMWNN wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If you haven’t read it before, don’t read the Wikipedia summary; read the actual story. Read it from the original publication: https://archive.org/details/Science_Fiction_Quarterly_New_Se... >

Interesting, the text on those scans is selectable, can anyone share how this is done is it a custom font? It does not seem so as the same letter appears to be rendered differently showing printing/scan artifacts. Maybe some styling?

One way to do it is you OCR the text and then print the text on top in a transparent font.

Re: The Last Question

#162

Post by Sakos »

freetime2 wrote: post #96
axytol wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting, the text on those scans is selectable, can anyone share how this is done is it a custom font? It does not seem so as the same letter appears to be rendered differently showing printing/scan artifacts. Maybe some styling?

Could it be this MacOS feature you are seeing? https://support.apple.com/guide/safari/interact-with-text-in...

On that note, the Preview app on MacOS does it automatically. I recently screenshotted my terminal to show a colleague and then noticed I could also copy text from that screenshot. Really cool and really helpful.

Re: The Last Question

#163

Post by Sakos »

xtracto wrote: post #12
hirundo wrote: post #3

Deus ex machina is usually a literary hack but Asimov gets away with it by taking it seriously.

Funny that in the same magazine where Asimov wrote this, there's a story by Robert Randall titled Deux ex Machina.

Which is printed on the pages directly after The Last Question too.

Re: The Last Question

#164

Post by Thorrez »

burrows wrote: post #158
Thorrez wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you think that people think? If there is nothing beyond the physical world, then the way people think is just physical interactions between microscopic particles. Those can be simulated by a powerful-enough computer. So it would be the same as the way that you think, except it would be in a simulation instead of the real physical world. So, no, "know" and "think" are not labels for an algorithm, but labels for…

> How do you think that people think? If there is nothing beyond the physical world, then the way people think is just physical interactions between microscopic particles. Those can be simulated by a powerful-enough computer. I believe nearly all propositions about people thinking are unintelligible. I also believe propositions about going beyond the physical world are unintelligible. If you’re taking about parts of…

>I believe nearly all propositions about people thinking are unintelligible.

Is human behavior governed purely by biological processes?

>Or are using the word “think” to identify some phenomena I can observe with a brain and a microscope?

Scientists have hooked up sensors to peoples' brains and sensed certain patterns of brain waves corresponding to certain thoughts.

Re: The Last Question

#165

Post by Thorrez »

TuringTest wrote: post #160
Thorrez wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>this could be similar, but way bigger and uncommon Reminds me of the Boltzmann Brain. If something is so unlikely, is it ok to assume it actually happened? >Why should that be a problem? Or, in any case, more of a problem that an entity without a cause of its own? If we say the current world is just a simulation in a different world, we haven't solved anything. We're back where we started: how did that world begin.…

> Reminds me of the Boltzmann Brain. If something is so unlikely, is it ok to assume it actually happened? To begin with, we have the (weak) anthropic principle saying that no matter how improbable the event is, the fact that we are here and can observe it is proof that it has happened. We may doubt how to explain it, but we cannot deny that it exists just because it seems improbable. Furthermore, we know that brains…

It seems to me like you're saying 2 things that contradict each other:

* The brain is too complex to appear all at once, it had to come about by a series of steps (evolution).

* There is no cause and effect in the universe, everything happens as part of 1 action.

I think we can only identify the brain as complex once we divide the universe into a series of steps, and see that the brain takes a lot of steps.

Re: The Last Question

#166

Post by TuringTest »

Thorrez wrote: post #165
TuringTest wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Reminds me of the Boltzmann Brain. If something is so unlikely, is it ok to assume it actually happened? To begin with, we have the (weak) anthropic principle saying that no matter how improbable the event is, the fact that we are here and can observe it is proof that it has happened. We may doubt how to explain it, but we cannot deny that it exists just because it seems improbable. Furthermore, we know that brains…

It seems to me like you're saying 2 things that contradict each other: * The brain is too complex to appear all at once, it had to come about by a series of steps (evolution). * There is no cause and effect in the universe, everything happens as part of 1 action. I think we can only identify the brain as complex once we divide the universe into a series of steps, and see that the brain takes a lot of steps.

> * The brain is too complex to appear all at once, it had to come about by a series of steps (evolution).

> * There is no cause and effect in the universe, everything happens as part of 1 action.

I don't see the contradiction, mainly because I don't support the second sentence as is. The steps that take place during evolution may happen without anyone there to observe them, so they would exist even without a complex brain to observe them. I don't see the existence of these steps as a flaw in my argument that the universe is self-generating and self-sustaining.

Also, causes and effects being two sides of the same substrate is not the same as everything being a single action; a universe that transforms itself will have states (or configurations, or patterns, if you prefer) that are a direct consequence of its previous states, without those consequences being created by something different and external to that same universe; only by its current reality and its eternal state of change.

I often find that both religious people and scientific rationalists are unable to differentiate sufficiently between the behaviour of reality and the knowledge we have of the behaviour of reality, equating them as if they were one and the same thing. For me, the concepts of "cause" and "effect" sit squarely in the "knowledge about reality" part, so none of the features we intuit about them can contradict whatever is actually happening in the observable world. My view of these two concepts is compatible with "the previous" universe being cause of "the next" universe, without the need of any external influence nor any specific "starting point".

I'm enjoying this conversation a lot, but I don't know for how long we'll be able to keep posting on this thread, and I'm not sure I have much more to say. I have not tried to convince you of my point of view, as I'm pretty sure these are not beliefs that can be swayed by rational arguments, but are based on emotions linked to learned concepts. I have merely tried to present my understanding of the cosmos in a coherent discourse that does not coincide with the classical concepts of the origins of reality, in the hope that your view of them will provide me with new angles, which it has done.

I'll be watching the thread to see if you say anything else, but for my part I don't think I have much more to contribute, just going in circles around more and more detail about the same ideas.

Re: The Last Question

#167

Post by Thorrez »

TuringTest wrote: post #166
Thorrez wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to me like you're saying 2 things that contradict each other: * The brain is too complex to appear all at once, it had to come about by a series of steps (evolution). * There is no cause and effect in the universe, everything happens as part of 1 action. I think we can only identify the brain as complex once we divide the universe into a series of steps, and see that the brain takes a lot of steps.

> * The brain is too complex to appear all at once, it had to come about by a series of steps (evolution). > * There is no cause and effect in the universe, everything happens as part of 1 action. I don't see the contradiction, mainly because I don't support the second sentence as is. The steps that take place during evolution may happen without anyone there to observe them, so they would exist even without a complex…

Yeah, thanks for the conversation. You've definitely made me think about some interesting things. Yeah, if I were to say more, it might just be repetitive.

Re: The Last Question

#169

Post by paraph1n »

jagrsw wrote: post #67
paraph1n wrote: post #27

A similarly thought-provoking short story, perhaps my favorite, is The Egg[1] by Andy Weir. [1]: http://www.galactanet.com/oneoff/theegg_mod.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Egg_(Weir_short_story)

I read the story many years ago, but failed to grasp its meaning. It seems to be piggybacking on themes of afterlife, karma, gods, and those typically are of interest to many. But, what kind of longer-lasting idea it tries to propose, that escapes me.

There's a lot of unpack from the story... For me one of the core teachings is that we all have something in common, being human. No matter what time period you lived in, no matter what family you were born into, no matter how your life proceeded: you are still human and have more in common with your neighbor than you might think.

It's easy for us to get lost in our own heads, saying "I'd never be like that person". We see them as the other, but in fact they are not so different from ourselves. This seeing of people as "the other" is the source of much conflict in the world.

But in this story, there is no other. There's only you. As the reader, you step into the shoes of the main character and ponder how you might feel if you were presented with such news upon your death. How would you look back on all the choices you made? How would you look back on the way you treated other people, who you've now learned are in fact yourself?

How would you feel? About your life just lived? About the lives ahead? Would you find peace? Finding peace in this reality is equivalent to the acceptance of others. In pondering these questions, the separation between yourself and others begins to dissolve, offering you a glimpse into the illusory nature of the self.

Plus, we don't know what the afterlife holds, or if there is one at all. So it's an interesting thought experiment also because it is an entirely plausible reality.

That's just my 2 cents though.

Post reply on HN