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

How to build a universe that doesn’t fall apart two days later (1978)

urbigenous.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 148 posts

Re: How to build a universe that doesn’t fall apart two days later (1978)

#31

Post by quonn »

hutzlibu wrote: post #14
quonn wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the quote is only great on one level. If we give it some thought it is not so great. Why? Because our mind evolved as a tool for survival of our self which is to say as a tool for survival of that which may pass on the genes which create said mind. This mind is, by default, full of illusions, full of a particularly biased view of the world and the content of that view does not go away when we stop believing in it…

"In short the statement is only true for the rather small subset of things that can be scientifically investigated" Which fundamental things cannot get scientifically investigated?

Only physical facts that do not affect our subjective consciousness. For example if the earth is flat or round.

Actually, let me make a stronger statement than before: Even for scientific facts the statement is weak. If I stop believing that the world is round, then what does it mean that the „roundness“ will not go away? From my point of view it certainly goes away and the world _will be_ flat. In order to accept that it is, objectively, not flat I have to accept other information, often information that I do not check or verify myself.

But subjectively, if I really stop believing the world is round then for sure it will start to feel flat.

So this criterion is not a good one.

I think it only is useful in the world of „succeeding“. So for example I may believe that a vaccination is dangerous and as a consequence I may die if unvaccinated. This is an example of reality not going away. Or I may believe that I can pass a test without studying but then I don‘t and so that‘s reality, again.

Re: How to build a universe that doesn’t fall apart two days later (1978)

#32

Post by Sakos »

Physkal wrote: post #4

This might be my first request for a chatgpt summary.

I was curious how well it would work, so here's the summarize result from Kagi:

    Philip K. Dick explores questions about what is real and how reality can be manipulated through advanced technology and propaganda. He is fascinated by these topics and writes fiction exploring them.

    Dick believes that bombardment by fake realities can turn people into "spurious humans" who no longer know what is real. Fake realities breed fake humans.

    Scenes and elements from Dick's novels sometimes mirrored or predicted real events, even though he did not intend them to. This included mirroring biblical stories which he was unfamiliar with.

    Dick had vivid experiences where he seemed to relive or foresee scenes from his own novels, like a man hiding behind a tree outside his home.

    He wonders if our universe started as an illusion but God is slowly making it real through love and wisdom.

    Manipulating words is a powerful tool for manipulating reality, as George Orwell showed in 1984.

    Reality and fiction blur together, with fiction mimicking truth and truth mimicking fiction.

    Ancient philosophers like Heraclitus, Xenophanes and others had insightful views on reality and God's role that modern people simplify.

    Ordinary people say no to tyrants through small acts of resistance like Dick mailing a fortune cookie slip to the White House.

    A metal lantern Dick was given echoed the shape of a fish, reminding him of biblical stories in strange ways.

Re: How to build a universe that doesn’t fall apart two days later (1978)

#33

Post by simonh »

quonn wrote: post #31
hutzlibu wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"In short the statement is only true for the rather small subset of things that can be scientifically investigated" Which fundamental things cannot get scientifically investigated?

Only physical facts that do not affect our subjective consciousness. For example if the earth is flat or round. Actually, let me make a stronger statement than before: Even for scientific facts the statement is weak. If I stop believing that the world is round, then what does it mean that the „roundness“ will not go away? From my point of view it certainly goes away and the world _will be_ flat. In order to accept th…

That just means beliefs about things that do not or will not ever affect you, er, don’t affect you. It seems like a trivial point.

You’re still accumulating risk though. You don’t know when a false belief will lead yo to make a consequential error, and also false beliefs could lead you to adopt faulty attitudes or ways of thinking that could lead you towards false beliefs in consequential ways. Or you could propagate such false beliefs to others, which may be consequential for them.

Re: How to build a universe that doesn’t fall apart two days later (1978)

#34

Post by notrlyskeptik »

quonn wrote: post #11
lifeisstillgood wrote: post #6

“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.” Great quote. So great I even posted it to my twitter account (my other bookmarking service) But the paste dropped the end quote mark and added a comma to the front. HN did not and did the above paste just fine. It bothers me, and I don't know why.

But the quote is only great on one level. If we give it some thought it is not so great. Why? Because our mind evolved as a tool for survival of our self which is to say as a tool for survival of that which may pass on the genes which create said mind. This mind is, by default, full of illusions, full of a particularly biased view of the world and the content of that view does not go away when we stop believing in it…

[dead]

Re: How to build a universe that doesn’t fall apart two days later (1978)

#35

Post by csomar »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #6

“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.” Great quote. So great I even posted it to my twitter account (my other bookmarking service) But the paste dropped the end quote mark and added a comma to the front. HN did not and did the above paste just fine. It bothers me, and I don't know why.

> It bothers me, and I don't know why.

Doesn't that mean you are living in a real reality? That comma is not going anywhere.

Re: How to build a universe that doesn’t fall apart two days later (1978)

#36

Post by Ygg2 »

hutzlibu wrote: post #14
quonn wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the quote is only great on one level. If we give it some thought it is not so great. Why? Because our mind evolved as a tool for survival of our self which is to say as a tool for survival of that which may pass on the genes which create said mind. This mind is, by default, full of illusions, full of a particularly biased view of the world and the content of that view does not go away when we stop believing in it…

"In short the statement is only true for the rather small subset of things that can be scientifically investigated" Which fundamental things cannot get scientifically investigated?

Things that can't be scientifically verified (i.e. can it make predictions and are predictions falsifiable), goes especially for things that require several test universes to test out.

For example what is the purpose of the universe? Is this the only universe? Is it a simulation? Is everything predetermined?

Re: How to build a universe that doesn’t fall apart two days later (1978)

#37

Post by hef19898 »

Ygg2 wrote: post #36
hutzlibu wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"In short the statement is only true for the rather small subset of things that can be scientifically investigated" Which fundamental things cannot get scientifically investigated?

Things that can't be scientifically verified (i.e. can it make predictions and are predictions falsifiable), goes especially for things that require several test universes to test out. For example what is the purpose of the universe? Is this the only universe? Is it a simulation? Is everything predetermined?

There are so kany religions to pick from, one of it will have the answers you seek.

Re: How to build a universe that doesn’t fall apart two days later (1978)

#38

Post by quonn »

simonh wrote: post #33
quonn wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only physical facts that do not affect our subjective consciousness. For example if the earth is flat or round. Actually, let me make a stronger statement than before: Even for scientific facts the statement is weak. If I stop believing that the world is round, then what does it mean that the „roundness“ will not go away? From my point of view it certainly goes away and the world _will be_ flat. In order to accept th…

That just means beliefs about things that do not or will not ever affect you, er, don’t affect you. It seems like a trivial point. You’re still accumulating risk though. You don’t know when a false belief will lead yo to make a consequential error, and also false beliefs could lead you to adopt faulty attitudes or ways of thinking that could lead you towards false beliefs in consequential ways. Or you could propagate…

It‘s not more trivial than „Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.“ which is a useless criterion even for scientific facts.

What you‘re suggesting about a false belief is an „unknown unknown“ so again the criteria of the quote is pretty useless in practice.

Re: How to build a universe that doesn’t fall apart two days later (1978)

#39

Post by stareatgoats »

Ygg2 wrote: post #26
lifeisstillgood wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to get too confrontational but why? The point of reading text by a talented author is to read his/her words in the way they wrote it. Otherwise it's all "14 year old girl wanted to test if her boyfriend would really get upset if she died, faked her death, it goes horribly wrong"

Did you read the article? It's still Philip K. Dick. It's absolutely bonkers. It starts normal, story about a dog biting the garbage man from PoV of the dog, story about surgeons discovering reality altering tape in a man, the question of what is reality, then descends into PKDs ramblings about being stuck in Satan's Tesseract Labyrinth, that it's actually AD 50 and people wearing pisces are real Jesus' followers, th…

In all fairness, it is a long article. Articles submitted to HN should ideally not be much longer than the title, because people don't have time nowadays - time has somehow shrunk to the point of near disappearance. It's not an accusation, it's just an observation, a fact of life. But once in a while a wormhole to another existence opens where there is still time to read a whole story, not sure how but some people seem to be able to. Alien tech?

Re: How to build a universe that doesn’t fall apart two days later (1978)

#40

Post by ordu »

quonn wrote: post #11
lifeisstillgood wrote: post #6

“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.” Great quote. So great I even posted it to my twitter account (my other bookmarking service) But the paste dropped the end quote mark and added a comma to the front. HN did not and did the above paste just fine. It bothers me, and I don't know why.

But the quote is only great on one level. If we give it some thought it is not so great. Why? Because our mind evolved as a tool for survival of our self which is to say as a tool for survival of that which may pass on the genes which create said mind. This mind is, by default, full of illusions, full of a particularly biased view of the world and the content of that view does not go away when we stop believing in it…

> a particularly biased view of the world

We can safely drop "biased" from the quote, because an unbiased view is a mirror. A useless thing.

> statement is only true for the rather small subset of things that can be scientifically investigated

Science is not a reality, it is one more view of a reality. It is easy to see if you look at the history of science. Scientific beliefs come to be replaced by others. Phlogiston is not real, it existed as a scientific belief, but ceased to exist when the belief was debunked.

> the observer cannot be removed and any beliefs come from the observer in the first place.

Yes, we cannot talk about reality without being observers of reality. We cannot talk about reality itself, we talk about beliefs/illusions/whatever.

> even if you do not believe in meditation yet, it can be observed in yourself and in others.

I do not believe in it, I tried it and what I believe it is impossible and people fake it. It is real but as a myth: I do not believe in this myth but it exists nevertheless, so it is real.

> the observer cannot be removed

Doesn't it mean that reality doesn't exist without an observer?

Post reply on HN