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

161–170 of 203 posts

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#161

Post by IAmGraydon »

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…

I'm glad you were able to explain why one of the most preeminent theoretical physicists of all time was "confused". Thank you for your clearly well-founded and extremely confident explanation.

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#162

Post by kstenerud »

svachalek wrote: post #60
ko27 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not like we are any closer to resolving the measurement problem today. I wouldn't be quick to dismiss Wheeler, all alternative theories for this problem are radical or "unattractive".

It's not like being radical or unattractive has anything to do with validity though.

Except that Wheeler got a LOT of things right, and this was in his wheelhouse. And he wasn't making a statement of fact on this, merely expressing his confusion that it wasn't making sense (yet).

And then he died before he could figure it out. All we have left are little strands of his thoughts.

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#163

Post by whoknw »

nickpsecurity wrote: post #155
whoknw wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 transforme…

That is why I prefixed my previous post with "in good faith". If you postulate that your speculations carry more weight without solid logical reasoning, that is not good faith to me.

Granted, that style of reasoning also has a long tradition in philosophers like Descartes, Berkeley, etc. Descartes famously postulates that "God is not a deceiver", and that we are dealing with a benevolent God. You make the same assumption. Back then, there had to be a God, because the church would have showed people how the afterlife looks like pretty quickly. I don't understand what necessitates such a stance today.

In any case: as long as you argue from the conclusion backwards, we can spare some ink and leave this be.

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#164

Post by doodlebugging »

rbanffy wrote: post #9

> It is not a phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon. It’s more palatable when we consider not the observation, but the information that was collapsed out of the superimposed states at the time of the observation. The universe uses lazy evaluation, and things only happen when they have effects on other things, and what we see as past depends on what we observe now, as both need to be consistent with each other…

If a phenomenon is not a phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenom and since the act of focusing on an observation yields information only about the phenomenon that we are attempting to observe, what happens to all the informations pilling out around it that becomes part of the unobserved phenomenon in the defocused region nearest the phenomenon that we are observing with highest focus?

Basically, is it true that nothing exists until we observe it with high enough focus that the information it contains builds its own reality. If this is true then does it mean that I need to wear my glasses all the time to experience reality and when I leave them on my desk I'm slipping thru an unfocused stream of information that only loosely defines a reality because I am unable to adequately focus on those things that I need to be observing, therefore they aren't quite definable phenomena.

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#165

Post by cosmic_dust9 »

floatrock wrote: post #34
its_bbq wrote: post #22

On the blackboard he and his students wrote "Godel's Proof -- too important to be left to the mathematicians." As a mathematician, I'd love if anyone here knew the context

Not a mathematician and it's been a number of years since I read GEB, but my rough takeaway of the incompleteness is self-referential systems are magical because they can create statements that can't be proven in that system. "This sentence is false" or "Can God create a burrito so hot He cannot eat it" and all that. So if Wheeler is saying the universe comes out of quantum observation, then the connection seems to b…

Wouldn't that be a limitation of language rather than the ability to form concepts?

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#166

Post by khafra »

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…

This Quanta Magazine article is mostly non-bunk history and uncontroversial physics; it lets us bask in the warm glow of confirming what we thought we knew, while filling in a conformant few facts we didn't know around the edges.

And when it tackles the possibly-bunk issues, it makes no concrete claims; it presents them in an anthropological manner. There is nothing to rebut.

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#168

Post by taylorius »

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…

To paraphrase Dilbert's boss - "discussions go a lot more smoothly when no-one present understands any of the details."

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#170

Post by Kbelicius »

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…

> 1. The laws of the universe require unimaginable power, knowledge, and precision to implement. Its Creator must have these traits.

Since you are adding these observation in the context of the universe being a simulation none of the above need to be true. The one who designed the universe did not necessarily have the knowledge to implement (code the universe), build the hardware that it runs on or built the power source that is powering it all.

Why did you jump to the conclusion that it is only one person/being doing everything?

> 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 and caring for His creation.

How do you know that it doesn't fail? What would failure even look like? Wouldn't something like the heat death of the universe signify its failure?

How do you know that the universe runs with 100% reliability?

Why mention that everything that humans build requires maintenance when even the universe, by your own words, requires maintenance by its creator?

> 3. Humans appear hardwired to seek who God is. So, the Creator wants us to look for them.

Humans appear hardwired to seek explanations to phenomena. So much so that when they can not logically explain a phenomena they will make up an explanation. Isn't this more logical than your statement, if not, why?

In your point 4 and 5 you are just saying because some facts of the universe thus god.

> 6. Many claim the Creator reveals Himself to them. One had objective proof, power, and outcomes that back that up (eg GetHisWord.com). The Creator has purpose for us which He helpfully shares. Jesus also lived it, too, in the same flesh before dying for our sins.

Did not share it with me. Why?

Post reply on HN