Live data from Hacker News

John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

quantamagazine.org

181–190 of 203 posts

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#181
post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Not exactly, my argument there was that there would be a huge number of individually more likely (due to being simpler) candidate objects for your criteria, that in combination entirely swamp every conception of God that has ever been written down in any book anywhere.

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#182
post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fro…

Assuming it only as part of that hypothesis, not assuming it for all reality. If it's not impossible, since we can't observe the evidence, its only detriment is complexity by either hypercomputational Simplicity priors (if we don't think we can fit it into logic) or extended Occam's priors (if we think we can).

As well as all the other hypotheses we can't meaningfully differentiate from it, almost none of them recognizable as your "God".

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Again, not a mathematician so I'm likely butchering all this, but my layperson's understanding is Godel showed there's a kind of equivalence mapping between english language and mathematical symbolic language. It's all just information juggling (and you can use the equivalence to translate things you can prove with mathematics into the other trickier languages).

So if sub-matter quantum-woo is just information juggling, then it's the ability to have self-referentiality that makes for some interesting properties.

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#185

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…

Maybe I am missing something, but I don’t see why it’s surprising that one idea would be received with curiosity and interest, while another would be received with skepticism based on analysis from the scientific community, even though they are both ideas from prominent scientists.

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#186

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.

Why don't you provide your own logic chain for why God doesn't exist and I'll read and respond to your arguments.

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

If you take general relativity and evidence for it then you’d have to accept there is no beginning or end, there’s spacetime. No time is passing and all events are embedded in timeless spacetime.

If you take quantum field theory, all reality spawns somehow out of immaterial fields without any cause.

Others from Advaita stream of thought have arrived at a place where the absolute is not God at all and don’t need physics to reason about that. In their terms we are all God with a problem of mistaken identity. Reality is already timeless, deathless.

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#188
post #180

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'm guessing you're referring to my HN comment here (and the resulting discussion): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41696559 Well... not all hypotheses are equal! I'm not necessarily a fan of Wheeler's "participatory universe" either, but I would note a few important differences: - Orch-Or claims to explain the origins of consciousness and free will. This overlaps with philosophy, which is concerned with what it…

> Orch-Or appears to be based on a misunderstanding of Godel's Theorem and computationalism, as has been pointed out by mathematicians and computer scientists.

When I was looking for this, I failed to find or agree with anything conclusive for either side. Admittedly, I am not knowledge enough to be a good judge. Do you have any pointers?

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#189
post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a dark version of this (with some pascal's wager thrown in) called Roko's basilisk. Maybe that's what you're thinking of? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roko%27s_basilisk

Roko's basilisk isn't retrocausal, maybe you're thinking of some Nick Land thing? But even there it's hard to tell how literal he is being with the Terminator analogies (if you haven't seen the movie it has time travel in it), the sanewashed version of his thesis revolves around thermodynamics, chaos theory, and strange attractors.

For a detailed discussion of retrocausality in Nick Land's work, check out the https://retrochronic.com/ introduction. There's even a dedicated Terminator section.

Nick Land interprets Roko's Basilisk as "retrochronic AI infiltration".

Re: John Wheeler saw the tear in reality

#190
post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 assump…

“ If you postulate that your speculations carry more weight without solid logical reasoning, that is not good faith to me.”

I thought my original comment had a link. We have a huge weight of evidence of various types to support God’s Word being from God. There’s usually more types for that than most beliefs people express on HN that are accepted. So, I start with that as a foundation much like proof assistants build on a core logic.

https://www.gethisword.com/evidence.html

To test your assertion, we can do simple comparisons that Christians often do to justify their beliefs. For instance, you equated our use of the Bible to Descartes stating an opinion. Did Descartes live a perfect life, claim to speak for God, and perform miracles to prove that? Did he come back from the dead? Do his followers experience unlikely transformations and life events in response to praying to Descartes? Do they get healings in the hospital verified by doctors by asking Descartes to heal the person? Would the people I’ve seen who were miracle healed have done better with Descartes?

When a philosopher or scientist counters Christ or His Word, we can just go down the list to find they don’t come close to refuting them. Christ wins the trustworthiness competition. Then, we trust Him based on that.

I would consider switching sides if the others met the same criteria. They’d have to claim to receive visions from God, their predictions come true precisely, work miracles, come back from the dead, have perfect character (trustworthy), and I’d have to get promised results following them. If not, “let God be true and every man a liar” when they contradict.

I find real science doesn’t contradict my faith, though, since it’s a pursuit of truth which God wants us to pursue. Most of it is OK or it doesn’t matter if it’s right or wrong. I can enjoy it all. :)

Post reply on HN