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

141–150 of 203 posts

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#141

Post by joshuamcginnis »

Vecr wrote: post #136
joshuamcginnis wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The logical error in your question is in the "that's external to God". Going back to my first post, the "cause" must be eternal (since it was what started time in order for existence to begin). And because this eternal cause was not affected or constrained by physical space, it had to be all-encompassing. Because of this, there could be nothing external to the cause (God).

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#142

Post by joshuamcginnis »

Vecr wrote: post #139
joshuamcginnis wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Maybe the name is what you're hung up on? Whatever this simpler thing is would still need to be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, possess intentionality, and decision-making capabilities.

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#143

Post by Vecr »

joshuamcginnis wrote: post #141
Vecr wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The logical error in your question is in the "that's external to God". Going back to my first post, the "cause" must be eternal (since it was what started time in order for existence to begin). And because this eternal cause was not affected or constrained by physical space, it had to be all-encompassing. Because of this, there could be nothing external to the cause (God).

I don't think your argument follows. Assume there's an uncreated universe that is very suited to running simulations. Assume someone in that universe creates our universe, fully contained inside theirs. Yes, that person is outside our time, and started our time, but in their universe, they are 1) constrained by physical space 2) not all-encompassing at all 3) have a whole lot of stuff in there with them that is external to them.

Sure, you can go into infinite regress arguments, but they hit both of our arguments just as hard.

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#144

Post by Vecr »

joshuamcginnis wrote: post #142
Vecr wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Maybe the name is what you're hung up on? Whatever this simpler thing is would still need to be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, possess intentionality, and decision-making capabilities.

Yes? But I assume you aren't arguing for God-as-in-any-object-or-idea-that-meets-a-list-of-criteria, I assume you're arguing for God. God that's described in any book I've read appears to have a lot of complexity, and I don't think it's likely that nothing else that would meet the criteria would be simpler.

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#145

Post by Vecr »

saulpw wrote: post #117
hcarnot wrote: post #68

The source of his confusion is believing that all observers must share a single reality. This is not the case: as an observer of event A=a, you only share the same reality as all other observers who also measure A=a (or anything downstream of A=a). If some observer comes along and measures A=b, they split away from your reality. Only the version of that observer that saw A=a stays with you. There is no "remote synchr…

Does this make the Law of Attraction valid, then? That what we focus on determines the reality that we traverse.

No. Or, maybe, but go demonstrate a merely gas-based Laplace demon first.

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#146

Post by joshuamcginnis »

jhickok wrote: post #129
joshuamcginnis wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regarding P2, there is ample cosmological evidence in the form of scientific theories like the Big Bang that provide strong support for the universe having a finite beginning. There is nothing that comes into existence without a cause. From your innermost creative thoughts to a spot of mold on bread, to a new leaf on a tree, to the seemingly random emergence of a rain storm - all have a beginning and all have a cause…

I understand that many people believe that, but I don't take it that there is broad consensus-- or any consensus-- that the Big Bang represents the beginning of anything save our the beginning of what we can reasonably infer and observe. I think most self-respecting astrophysicists would respond to the question "Was there anything prior to the Big Bang?" with an "I don't know". Regardless, P1 is still required to mak…

No one is claiming to know what happened prior to the Big Bang. Whatever existed before time had to be infinite. If you read my logic carefully, I believe I make a perfectly reasonable case for 1. the universe existing (which I think most people would agree, we are living in an existence) and 2. that existence having a start (e.g. the universe is expanding, light gets redder the longer it travels, etc) 3. Anything that comes into existence has a cause.

I think when you combine the scientific evidence with the logic and continue down that line, you can make a good faith argument for an intelligent creator.

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#147

Post by codetrotter »

gnz11 wrote: post #114
codetrotter wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which raises the question, if a tree falls in-game, but only non-playable characters are there. Does the falling tree make a sound when it hits the ground?

Sound is only perceived, it’s not intrinsic to the event itself.

Do the NPCs in the game perceive sound?

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#148

Post by joshuamcginnis »

Vecr wrote: post #128
joshuamcginnis wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regarding P2, there is ample cosmological evidence in the form of scientific theories like the Big Bang that provide strong support for the universe having a finite beginning. There is nothing that comes into existence without a cause. From your innermost creative thoughts to a spot of mold on bread, to a new leaf on a tree, to the seemingly random emergence of a rain storm - all have a beginning and all have a cause…

Only if you don't think there's there's a singularity (or singularity-replacement) in the future. Maybe against Wheeler? I can't remember. But anyway, if there's a singularity (or suitable singularity-replacement) in both the future and the past you might be able to use something like Hawking's No-Boundary Condition theory to claim P2 is false. Not that I do, but P2 is not rock-solid from a logic standpoint.

In layman terms, what are the current cohesive and logical arguments for existence having no beginning?

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#149

Post by joshuamcginnis »

Vecr wrote: post #144
joshuamcginnis wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe the name is what you're hung up on? Whatever this simpler thing is would still need to be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, possess intentionality, and decision-making capabilities.

Yes? But I assume you aren't arguing for God-as-in-any-object-or-idea-that-meets-a-list-of-criteria, I assume you're arguing for God . God that's described in any book I've read appears to have a lot of complexity, and I don't think it's likely that nothing else that would meet the criteria would be simpler.

Ah, great question. OK, if there is a "God" explanation for creation and its a logically sound argument, then how do we know who or what this God is? Many religions claim to know, but how we can differentiate them and use logic, reason, science, etc to find this one true God. Is that the question you're after?

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#150

Post by hcarnot »

saulpw wrote: post #117
hcarnot wrote: post #68

The source of his confusion is believing that all observers must share a single reality. This is not the case: as an observer of event A=a, you only share the same reality as all other observers who also measure A=a (or anything downstream of A=a). If some observer comes along and measures A=b, they split away from your reality. Only the version of that observer that saw A=a stays with you. There is no "remote synchr…

Does this make the Law of Attraction valid, then? That what we focus on determines the reality that we traverse.

No, reality is not related to what we "focus" on. I don't subscribe to quantum observer anthropocentrism (which is also something that Wheeler fell prey to): an "observer" doesn't have to be conscious and doesn't have to be human. An observer is simply something in the universe whose state causally depends on some quantum phenomenon. For that thing to resolve its state, it needs to "measure" the outcome of the quantum phenomenon. That is all.
Post reply on HN