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

John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

quantamagazine.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 203 posts

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#131

Post by joshuamcginnis »

copypasterepeat wrote: post #127
joshuamcginnis wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is the argument for a singular cause vs a plurality of causes: 1. Occam's Razor favors explanations with the fewest entities. 2. A single cause requires fewer assumptions than multiple causes. 3. Therefore, a singular cause is more parsimonious than a plural cause. 4. A singular cause ensures consistent intentionality and unified purpose. 5. Multiple causes would necessitate coordination and could result in conf…

But wait a minute, by that logic wouldn't the fewest assumptions be that there was no cause that created the universe and that universe is a timeless, cause-less entity. Isn't that fewer assumptions than positing another entity that has those attributes.

The logic posted was in answer to _what_ is the cause, not _if_ there is a cause. I already made the case for there being a cause in my original post. Nothing comes into existence without a cause. The cause being a singular timeless eternal entity requires fewer assumptions than the multi-modal explanation theory the other user suggested.

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#132

Post by airstrike »

xpl wrote: post #109
airstrike wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if I include it as a variant in my Universe enum, then doesn't it exist anyway, at least as a concept, even if it's never constructed?

Then it's not a real universe but a mere symbol, I'd say. "Map vs. territory" And in order for that symbol to exist (be expressed / thought of / conceived), it must be a part of some other existing universe that allows that...

But in which universe does that "map" exist? Boom, you've just created an universe containing a map out of a never-constructed-universe-containing-nothing.

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#133

Post by Vecr »

joshuamcginnis wrote: post #123
Vecr wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, by the Principle of Multiple Explanations, every "object" that satisfies your conditions is equally viable, everything being equal. You can slap a hypercomputational simplicity prior on that if you want, but that probably militates against the object being God, because I wouldn't expect God to be "simple" under that definition.

It's possible there are multiple explanations, I give you that. No one can know for certain. The argument against it; however, is more logically coherent and parsimonious than the multiple theory. Happy to dig into why that is if you want to go deeper.

I'm not arguing against a single "actual" cause, just that you don't know what the "actual" cause is to the extent that you can exclude all but exactly one explanation. Multiple hypotheses fit the data (or in this case the criteria I accepted for the sake of the discussion).

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#134

Post by joshuamcginnis »

Vecr wrote: post #125
joshuamcginnis wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is the argument for a singular cause vs a plurality of causes: 1. Occam's Razor favors explanations with the fewest entities. 2. A single cause requires fewer assumptions than multiple causes. 3. Therefore, a singular cause is more parsimonious than a plural cause. 4. A singular cause ensures consistent intentionality and unified purpose. 5. Multiple causes would necessitate coordination and could result in conf…

Okay, accepting these new criteria (actually somewhat reasonable, if you accept the universe has a creator), intentionality restricts the objects that are acceptable, but if you accept extended Occam's priors that have the capability to contain God [0], then every "object" that meets the requirements and is simpler than God is a better explanation. [0]: Not the same as the previously mentioned simplicity priors, as y…

I accept the universe has a cause because of the logic I presented earlier. Humans have no reason to believe there is existence without cause (if you can find a single example of something being created without a cause, you would change the course of human history!)

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#135

Post by [deleted] »

Vecr wrote: post #133
joshuamcginnis wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's possible there are multiple explanations, I give you that. No one can know for certain. The argument against it; however, is more logically coherent and parsimonious than the multiple theory. Happy to dig into why that is if you want to go deeper.

I'm not arguing against a single "actual" cause, just that you don't know what the "actual" cause is to the extent that you can exclude all but exactly one explanation. Multiple hypotheses fit the data (or in this case the criteria I accepted for the sake of the discussion).

[deleted]

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#136

Post by Vecr »

joshuamcginnis wrote: post #131
copypasterepeat wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But wait a minute, by that logic wouldn't the fewest assumptions be that there was no cause that created the universe and that universe is a timeless, cause-less entity. Isn't that fewer assumptions than positing another entity that has those attributes.

The logic posted was in answer to _what_ is the cause, not _if_ there is a cause. I already made the case for there being a cause in my original post. Nothing comes into existence without a cause. The cause being a singular timeless eternal entity requires fewer assumptions than the multi-modal explanation theory the other user suggested.

Maybe "alternative explanations" is better wording. If you don't think God fits into a simplicity detector, could a simplicity detector of some sort that's external to God and every other member of the set of God-like objects complete at least a stochastic (probabilistic) scan?

That would in theory give priors for the probability of the "object" that fits the criteria given.

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#137

Post by whoknw »

nickpsecurity wrote: post #99
bwood wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been compiling a list of ways in which physical reality is similar to game engines or mechanical simulation in general. Here's my list so far: - The observer effect, quantum entanglement and wavefunction collapse --> lazy evaluation - Speed of light --> speed of causality to resolve the object interaction problem O(n^2) - Quanta of energy, Planck's length --> discretization of reality to limit computational prec…

Add a few more observations: 1. The laws of the universe require unimaginable power, knowledge, and precision to implement. Its Creator must have these traits. 2. It doesn’t fail. Everything humans build requires maintenance but still fails. That this universe runs with a 100% reliability rate shows its maintainer’s power, knowledge, and perfection. It also shows He is sustaining us every second. He’s thinking about…

If you are willing to argue in good faith (no pun intended), I'd recommend for you to read Spinoza. Spinoza builds on your argument number one and argues that there can only be one substance, and this substance is God. In a nutshell: God is everything that exists, we do not exist outside of God (we are "modes" of God, if I remember correctly). Spinoza also argues that by virtue of being the only substance, God exists necessarily and does not have a choice.

The implications of this logic create problems for the Judeo-Christian stance. Absolute morality goes out of the window and a few other things with it as well.

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#138

Post by joshuamcginnis »

Vecr wrote: post #133
joshuamcginnis wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's possible there are multiple explanations, I give you that. No one can know for certain. The argument against it; however, is more logically coherent and parsimonious than the multiple theory. Happy to dig into why that is if you want to go deeper.

I'm not arguing against a single "actual" cause, just that you don't know what the "actual" cause is to the extent that you can exclude all but exactly one explanation. Multiple hypotheses fit the data (or in this case the criteria I accepted for the sake of the discussion).

I'm not claiming to know to an infinitesimal degree of certainty; I'm simply presenting the evidence and making my case. There are many truths that cannot be proven in the way you'd like. Prove to me that you won't commit a murder tomorrow. Prove to me that George Washington was a real person. Prove to me that you love your family.

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#139

Post by Vecr »

joshuamcginnis wrote: post #134
Vecr wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, accepting these new criteria (actually somewhat reasonable, if you accept the universe has a creator), intentionality restricts the objects that are acceptable, but if you accept extended Occam's priors that have the capability to contain God [0], then every "object" that meets the requirements and is simpler than God is a better explanation. [0]: Not the same as the previously mentioned simplicity priors, as y…

I accept the universe has a cause because of the logic I presented earlier. Humans have no reason to believe there is existence without cause (if you can find a single example of something being created without a cause, you would change the course of human history!)

You deleted the other comment I was trying to respond to, but I'm interested in a response to the idea that an "object" that meets all the requirements you've given could be simpler than God, and therefore more likely by Occam priors.

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#140

Post by JALTU »

james_marks wrote: post #100
meowkit wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the other comments point out... most things are dynamical systems that respond to chaos theory (small inputs, big divergence in output). Many of the possible states can be reduced down to two or so poles (e.g. skepticism vs acceptance vs outrage vs indifference in our potential responses) Trying to determine when or why a dynamical system like this goes to a specific state is Sisyphean if I put a word to it. Novel…

I’ve noticed in round table discussions where everyone is expected to comment, an idea will emerge early and then dominate future responses. Sure, many of us seek acceptance from the group, but also, as an idea gets traction, I think it just gets harder to have an original idea. It’s like trying to remember how a song goes while another one is playing, and I see it on HN threads (like this one!) often.

Group-thinkers gonna group.
Post reply on HN