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

How to build a universe that doesn’t fall apart two days later (1978)

urbigenous.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 148 posts

Re: How to build a universe that doesn’t fall apart two days later (1978)

#111

Post by otabdeveloper4 »

nonrandomstring wrote: post #86
otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in the technological age Every age is a technological age. The technology (per se) of a paleolithic human is no less complex and involved that the technology of today. Technology is about process and supply chain complexity, not knowledge. The paleolithic human was short on knowledge, but their supply chains were as global, complex and fragile as the ones we have today.

I think in 1800 you would have got away with that argument. But for me, living after 2000, when I say "technological age" I'm speaking of the Anthropocene [0]. There's a qualitative difference of systematic complexity. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene

You severely underestimate the technological complexity of stone age life.

(Much of it has been lost to history and can't be reproduced anymore.)

Re: How to build a universe that doesn’t fall apart two days later (1978)

#112

Post by mhaberl »

otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #80
mhaberl wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia states that you are not correct: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinct#In_humans

Wikipedia is wrong. Feelings aren't instinct. (Feeling disgusted or sexually aroused or aggressive isn't an instinct.) Instincts, by definition, are complex behavior. (Think birds building nests; nobody teaches them to do that, they are born with that knowledge.)

Encyclopedia Britannica [1] also doesn't agree with you. > ...it is taken to include the possibility that humans too can be governed by instinct

But that's far from being the only source that defines 'instinct' in a way that doesn't align with what you're proposing.

Humans do have instincts.

[1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/instinct/Instinct-as-behavi...

Re: How to build a universe that doesn’t fall apart two days later (1978)

#113

Post by mock-possum »

robertlagrant wrote: post #46
lifeisstillgood wrote: post #6

“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.” Great quote. So great I even posted it to my twitter account (my other bookmarking service) But the paste dropped the end quote mark and added a comma to the front. HN did not and did the above paste just fine. It bothers me, and I don't know why.

Does this preclude love from being part of reality?

How?

If I stop believing in love, and you experience love, then clearly love has not gone away when I stopped believing in it, unless I’m missing something?

Re: How to build a universe that doesn’t fall apart two days later (1978)

#114

Post by moomoo11 »

NickM wrote: post #84

I wonder how many of the people commenting on this essay read all the way through. It starts out quite lucid and makes some seemingly insightful points, but as the essay goes on he starts to descend into some strange metaphysical ideas about time not being real and reality being a retelling of parts of the Bible. I’m not familiar with much of PKD’s works or his life story, but I honestly can’t tell if he had mental h…

Seems like a typical story after taking some heroic shrooms dose or LSD.

I mean, end of the day, who the heck knows what is even real. We're here now, whatever this is. YOLO.

Re: How to build a universe that doesn’t fall apart two days later (1978)

#115

Post by nonrandomstring »

polishdude20 wrote: post #108
jacobr1 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "self-assured smart-asses" are often those loudly proclaiming their authenticity. That doesn't make it so, but it can blur the lines.

Then again what IS "authenticity"? It depends on your values. It really teeters on the fact that we all deep down share some common goal. Extend all human life? Increase all human happiness? Or maybe just increase my groups happiness? Or just increase my own? "Authenticity" is a buzzword that is more akin to "consistency". You don't flip flop between various values. But then there's the meta-flip flopping of values.…

I'd say that authenticity is actually independent of values (maybe you're saying that too).

A problem is that one could be an authentic mass murderer.

Bare authenticity alone is insufficient for moral good.

Indeed it may not even be necessary by some moral theories.

But, in saying I value authenticity, I am not claiming to be moral or right.

I could very well be horribly wrong in everything I think about technology - a monstrous throwback holding humanity from blessed Utopia. Time will tell. Meanwhile "authenticity" remains a value I aspire to.

Re: How to build a universe that doesn’t fall apart two days later (1978)

#116

Post by LastTrain »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #58
nonrandomstring wrote: post #43

For me, the most powerful passage in this one is; """ The authentic human being is one of us who instinctively knows what he should not do, and, in addition, he will balk at doing it. He will refuse to do it, even if this brings down dread consequences to him and to those whom he loves. This, to me, is the ultimately heroic trait of ordinary people; they say no to the tyrant and they calmly take the consequences of t…

Nah, Moloch loves the "authentic" humans, because they can be bullshitted into doing anything. Yes, they'll resist any direct attempts at telling them how to live their lives - but they'll do that as much to a tyrant, as to their democratic representatives, or their own community. Inertia is not a virtue - neither for an object, nor for a human. The way against "authentic" humans' resistance/reactance is something Mo…

I find the worst actors to be the ones that try and fill with you with so much cynicism and mistrust that the "authentic humans" feel debased and consequently second-guess themselves.

Re: How to build a universe that doesn’t fall apart two days later (1978)

#117

Post by ordu »

quonn wrote: post #44
ordu wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a particularly biased view of the world We can safely drop "biased" from the quote, because an unbiased view is a mirror. A useless thing. > statement is only true for the rather small subset of things that can be scientifically investigated Science is not a reality, it is one more view of a reality. It is easy to see if you look at the history of science. Scientific beliefs come to be replaced by others. Phlogisto…

> I do not believe in it, I tried it and what I believe it is impossible and people fake it. It is real but as a myth: I do not believe in this myth but it exists nevertheless, so it is real. I agree with your second point, but not with the first point. How is it impossible? Just sit and observe. _That_ is certainly possible. So you seem to imply that the experience was not what you expected it to be so I need to ask…

> So you seem to imply that the experience was not what you expected it to be so I need to ask: What did you expect it to be?

Something special enough so I would feel an urge to use a special word to describe it.

Re: How to build a universe that doesn’t fall apart two days later (1978)

#118

Post by syncsynchalt »

rsaarelm wrote: post #76

What's the deal with the "headline ... in a California newspaper", "Scientists say that mice cannot be made to look like human beings"? Is this referencing some actual thing or did he just make it up?

Presumably in the context of medical testing. It's a common point made in journals to this day:

- https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2020/why-drugs-tested-in-...

- https://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/12/science/testing-of-some-d...

- https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/mar/20/mice-clinica...

and a humorous take:

- https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/08/01/scientists-ask...

Re: How to build a universe that doesn’t fall apart two days later (1978)

#119

Post by hateful »

What's interesting is that early on he talks about when you watch TV the "Words and pictures are synchronized." - then both the Bible quotes and his quoted story have a rhythm, rhyme and alliteration in which to do the same.

I found myself half way through the passages and I've stopped paying direct attention.

He's re-writing our view of the universe by hypnotizing us.

Like any good magician, he's told us the trick, right at the beginning. Like Romeo and Juliet or the opening song of Frozen - and we immediately forgot it - and then we were tricked anyway!

Mr. Dick, I see what you did there.

Re: How to build a universe that doesn’t fall apart two days later (1978)

#120

Post by coldtea »

cortesoft wrote: post #107
coldtea wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Inertia is not a virtue - neither for an object, nor for a human. What Dick describes is the opposite of inertia. It takes internal resolve (and force) to stand against all the forces pressuring them to do the wrong thing. Inertia would instead just go with the flow of power -- the path of least resistance that's more comfortamble. > The way against "authentic" humans' resistance/reactance is something Moloch figur…

> Inertia would instead just go with the flow of power No, inertia is specifically the characteristic of matter to continue in its current state, not the characteristic of not pushing back against another force. If a stationary object is suddenly pushed by a force, inertia is the property that resists moving.

>No, inertia is specifically the characteristic of matter to continue in its current state, not the characteristic of not pushing back against another force.

In any case, we're not going for physics here, but for parable. After all inertia is not Dick's word for this, it's the [thread's] parent's.

Dick's point is: ordinary people are often the real heroes, not asking to the recognition as heroes nor through doing conventional heroic acts, but through resisting doing a bad thing they're asked to do, when it would be easier to just comply and follow the flow (where the flow is the society/order/army/historical flow towards some bad path).

Post reply on HN