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

151–160 of 203 posts

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#151

Post by Mattasher »

szvsw wrote: post #89
state_less wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The simulation framing tends to draw deterministic connotations. I think when people think of a simulation or perhaps physical interpretations, they imagine life as happening to them, rather than through them. I think it’s easy to perceive it one way or the other, and what you seek you will find. But something like ‘lazy evaluation’ could provide a bridge between the two views. A choice is made AND a physically compa…

> The simulation framing tends to draw deterministic connotations. I bristle at this because there is obviously a massive amount of probabilistic programming methodology and stochastic simulation techniques out there, but at the end of the day in terms of connotation you are probably correct…

I think there's a case to be made that, if the simulation hypothesis is correct, we are god's dice[1]. We exist as agents to introduce randomness in the form of free will or enough chaos to ensure non-determinism, at least from the perspective of whatever force built this place.

[1] https://mattasher.substack.com/p/btf-6-gods-dice

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#152

Post by joshuamcginnis »

Vecr wrote: post #143
joshuamcginnis wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 exter…

One cannot just "assume there's an uncreated universe". There's no evidence for that. I'm not saying it's impossible, but if we're going to use it to make conclusions, there's has to be some logical or observable basis for it. My arguments are based on logic and observation. It would be impossible to find the truth if we just dream up any possible scenario without actually drawing conclusions from the evidence in front of us.

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#153

Post by [deleted] »

esperent wrote: post #130
joshuamcginnis wrote: post #115

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. 4. This cause is uncaused, timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. 5. To create the universe, this cause must possess intentionality and decision-making capabilities. 6. Therefore, the cause of the universe is a personal, immaterial being: God.

If you start with the conclusion ( therefore God exists ), you'll always be able to find a logical chain that seems to prove it true.

[deleted]

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#154

Post by Mattasher »

hcarnot wrote: post #150
saulpw wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 quantu…

In this definition an "observer" is anything whose path depends on some perceived outcome (as in state of the universe), correct? So that could be human or a rock tumbling down a hill.

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#155

Post by nickpsecurity »

whoknw wrote: post #137
nickpsecurity wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It might be interesting to read. It's not far from my original guess about these things.

The logic wouldn't create a problem for us due to the weight of our source, the Word of God. Whatever counters it would need perfect character, prophecies that came true, miraculous power, historical evidence, and global impact on most people groups. Then, his followers would have to experience similar things on top of transformed lives. If not, his views remain pure speculation with nothing backing them like most religions and philosophies. Not threatening at all. :)

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#156

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#157

Post by gooseyard »

ricksunny wrote: post #48

It's interesting we have such receptivity in the HN community here on physicist-proposed metaphysics (yay!), yet in an entirely similar light - an article covering physicist Roger Penrose's 'microtubules' on HN a couple days ago, we get the reflexive "but experts say this is bunk' treatment. Personally I don't know from Sam on either hypothesis. I'm just wondering for all things seeming equal, when do we get receptiv…

i wouldn't sweat it. if orch-or works out it won't matter who was on board early. sometimes i think that a group of people guess that some theory is correct before some clever academics figure out how to prove it in a manner that satisfies the community of science, but without that rigor we'd be buried in bullshit.

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#158

Post by nickpsecurity »

anthk wrote: post #102
nickpsecurity wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's a bunch of fallacies.

You didn't say that about either the claims in the OP article or prior submissions with less proof of what they say. Your reaction might be emotional, not logical. I encourage you to consider it logically.

An easy test would be to find human machines that have 100% reliability without design or maintenance. Then, strong arguments that they'll remain that way for thousands to billions of years with no intelligent intervention. If you wouldn't believe that, why would you believe an atheist that says the universe's superior machinery was likewise undesigned, is unmaintained, and is accidentally perfect? That goes against everything we've observed.

We also have a guess on the computational requirements which are mind-boggling. Just simulating tiny molecular or quantum systems with total accuracy, if it's even happened, takes a ton of computation. Every sub-particle or force in the entire universe running at the same time is unimaginable computation. Plus, the Creator makes them all work exactly as desired with the same, observed patterns. We can't get cellular automata to work like we want but the Creator is directing a universe of simple interactions to cause specific behavior, global and local?

God is the best theory for these observations. That also makes Him the most interesting of all beings in existence. Since we know Him, we also worship Him on top of it. That's acquired through non-scientific means, though. He supernaturally imparts it to those who believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It's more phenomenological but indirectly observable.

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#159

Post by kstenerud »

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…

He didn't believe that all observers must share a single reality. He was confused because it was neither "one reality per observer", nor "one reality for all". The question he wanted to answer was: "What is it, then?"

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#160

Post by kstenerud »

joshuamcginnis wrote: post #115

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. 4. This cause is uncaused, timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. 5. To create the universe, this cause must possess intentionality and decision-making capabilities. 6. Therefore, the cause of the universe is a personal, immaterial being: God.

No one has proven P1 to be true in all frames. We're not even sure that time began.

We don't know if P2 is actually true (in fact, there is growing suspicion that the big bang was merely the beginning of the current phase of our universe).

Also, your P4 contradicts your P1, and the rest is speculation.

Post reply on HN