Live data from Hacker News

Why life is absurd

opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com

11–20 of 148 posts

Re: Why life is absurd

#11
The absurdity of life is the absurdity of existence: that there is anything at all is completely absurd and it's doubtful that this will ever be explained satisfactorily.

Re: Why life is absurd

#12
She doesn't seem to discuss the cause I see, which is that life emerges from the random set of deterministic rules that define the universe. There's no crucial reason life as we know it looks one way over any other - if some portion of the universe had developed different emergent patterns then life could easily be defined according to those patterns instead of the ones we use in our portion, and it would still be absurd. Humans didn't have to evolve from apes; they may have been in the right position to develop more advanced intellects but had giraffes been in the right position then giraffe-ancestors would be arguing about life's absurdity right now instead. Each moment's state depends entirely on the previous moment, and states are not globally optimized at each moment, so they build up into complicated weird-looking systems over time. There's not much we can do about that.

Re: Why life is absurd

#13
post #11

The absurdity of life is the absurdity of existence: that there is anything at all is completely absurd and it's doubtful that this will ever be explained satisfactorily.

Agreed. The text of the article simply should have been one word, 'Because'. Trying to make reason of the nature of absurdity seems fairly absurd itself.

Re: Why life is absurd

#14
The thing that people often over extrapolate based on Special Relativity (SR) and other things like Quantum Mechanics (QM) is they think that "relative" (or for QM, "probabilistic") means arbitrary. No, in fact while time is not "absolute", certain things about time for all observers are constrained. For example, the time between events depends on the observer, but use that time separation multiplied by the speed of light--the distance a light ray travels in that time--and take the square of that distance and subtract the square of the distance between said events' locations, this quantity is the same for all observers. This IS a constraint on the "distance" between events in SR.

This really isn't the relativity that the author alludes to, but I have something to say about this too. As physicists, we term this "relativity" the author deals with as "dealing with units." Having a concept of time is meaningless without a given scale. For example, for the ultraintense-plasma interactions that I am discussing in the paper I'm writing today, a picosecond is a long time given that the electro-magnetic dynamics I care about happen on the femtosecond scale. For the hydrodynamic simulations my groupmate will work on, picoseconds are the timescales of significance. Of course, when heating the coffee in the cup next to me, the barista measures timescales much larger than this, of the order of seconds, exponentially longer than both of the former scales.

Life is a complicated phenomenon which captures dynamics at many scales. Thinking about life can be just as complicated, if you let it. An issue I often see is equating parts of life with other parts and thus, using the same scales for both. This often leads us into trouble. Why does it take my friend an hour to shower while it only takes me ten minutes? If I can write a python script in one day, why the hell does it take this junior dev two weeks to make his? Of course, the same issue here is a novice physicist comparing the fs physics I deal with to the ps my friend does, the comparison isn't valid just because they are both "times."

This is why even though life seems short for some people it can seem long for others. Just because 80 years is a year and people are people, any given individual has their own experiences and opinions that shapes their vantage point, and it can be hard to really compare the two. Of course, just like the "real" relativity SR, there are certain constraints we can make on time in this context, many people might prefer longer lives even if we lived 1000 years if millennial* olds are as selfish as us 80-year-ers are. But the diversity in context must be taken into account as it should be for me when I model ultra-intense laser plasma interactions. Context always matters.

Thinking about the context for each person's scales makes our look on life a little less absurd. I think that more often than not, people's motivations (for desiring longevity, for instance) have good reasoning in them, especially when you consider their context.

[*] It's funny that millennial here means people who are 1000 years old as opposed to people in their late teens to early twenties.

Re: Why life is absurd

#15
post #4
post #2

the assumption the author makes is that longevity will only bring us more time and that pretty much everything about the human condition will remain the same. It is tedious to be human. The amount of time dedicated to maintaining one's body even when young and healthy can feel tiresome. Longevity is not about extending our misery but about finding a way out of these limited meat bags. Perhaps there is a meaning and t…

What makes life so interesting and great in my opinion, are the limitations --and the boundaries of those limitations that people push further and further-- of these meat bags we carry eveywhere with us.

I feel like this is just "best of all worlds" thinking rather than an actual love of physical limitation. If it were the latter, why wouldn't we just start cutting off limbs and really get some interesting limitations?

Re: Why life is absurd

#16
post #6

I couldn't agree more that our humanity places truly absurd limits on our existence. You get, if you're lucky 30-40 years of solid productivity after 20-30 years of training. Maybe enough time to create one or two solid accomplishments before your capacity for thought, and soon enough your capacity for life is extinguished. Also consider the economic argument. On the one hand, the level of investment experts make in…

"...30-40 years of solid productivity..."

Even less, many people choose family.

Also if longevity is achieved there will be plenty of disruption on the way, since there is no "magic pill", but rather a lot of breakthroughs combined.

Re: Why life is absurd

#17
post #5

As someone who believes in Islam this is an extremely thought provoking piece and I love it. It makes you think and question existence. It makes you wonder about what we're doing here and how life would be different if we existing at a different point in time and space. Just such interesting topics for conversation. Life and the universe.

Maybe one can see religion as simply a rational response to the absurdity of life as described in the article. Life is patently absurd and yet we are rational. Why is that? We don't need to be. The answer for many is that there must be something more. For others the something more is itself absurd. But it doesn't mean that it is an irrational response. Its quite the opposite. It's an attempt to make sense of something that, from a broad perspective, is an assault to our rationality

Re: Why life is absurd

#18
post #6

I couldn't agree more that our humanity places truly absurd limits on our existence. You get, if you're lucky 30-40 years of solid productivity after 20-30 years of training. Maybe enough time to create one or two solid accomplishments before your capacity for thought, and soon enough your capacity for life is extinguished. Also consider the economic argument. On the one hand, the level of investment experts make in…

> I think human intelligence hits an asymptote due to mortality. There's only so deep an individual can go, and a limit on how much you can replace depth with breadth.

I don't know exactly what you mean by "human intelligence", but in general we get deeper not by stretching vertically, but by moving vertically, if you follow the metaphor. Many software engineers today don't even have a passing familiarity with the deeper levels of the stack they're programming on, and that's all new stuff in the last ~50 years.

Re: Why life is absurd

#19
post #12

She doesn't seem to discuss the cause I see, which is that life emerges from the random set of deterministic rules that define the universe. There's no crucial reason life as we know it looks one way over any other - if some portion of the universe had developed different emergent patterns then life could easily be defined according to those patterns instead of the ones we use in our portion, and it would still be ab…

Still it's kind of absurd that we are humans, and not, say, mosquitos, for the a-priori probability of finding yourself in the body of a mosquito is quite a bit higher.

Re: Why life is absurd

#20
post #11

The absurdity of life is the absurdity of existence: that there is anything at all is completely absurd and it's doubtful that this will ever be explained satisfactorily.

You can even split that into steps and levels. Absurdity progresses from the entire universe right down into details like the existence of coffee or oil. Two black liquids that just happen to exist and fuel the world. Can you imagine modern society without them?

But what bugs me most is that a universe without an entity to perceive and observe it is just such a waste of ... energy? It's almost like the existence of the universe implies the existence of an observer. That the formation of intelligent life is an expected result of the universe existing.

Post reply on HN