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

41–50 of 148 posts

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

#41

Post by quonn »

Ensorceled wrote: post #20
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…

> It‘s a statement about the content of the world without an observer, but the observer-world interface is the more interesting part, the observer cannot be removed and any beliefs come from the observer in the first place. It’s literally a statement ABOUT the observer-world interface. In general, assuming anything from Dick is pedestrian is kind of foolish.

Well that‘s exactly why I‘m criticizing that statement. It places an undue amount of trust in the state of our mind regardless of what that state may be at any time and calls that truth.

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

#42

Post by mnky9800n »

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…

I suppose if you cannot imagine a world without an observer than there's not much abstractions within you.

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

#43

Post by nonrandomstring »

For me, the most powerful passage in this one is;

   """ The authentic human being is one of us who instinctively knows
       what he should not do, and, in addition, he will balk at doing
       it. He will refuse to do it, even if this brings down dread
       consequences to him and to those whom he loves. This, to me, is
       the ultimately heroic trait of ordinary people; they say no to
       the tyrant and they calmly take the consequences of this
       resistance. Their deeds may be small, and almost always
       unnoticed, unmarked by history. Their names are not remembered,
       nor did these authentic humans expect their names to be
       remembered. I see their authenticity in an odd way: not in
       their willingness to perform great heroic deeds but in their
       quiet refusals. In essence, they cannot be compelled to be what
       they are not. - P.K Dick """
This underpins my selective abstinence from certain areas of technological life. It lets me laugh at "inevitability" and "necessity, fear no "inconvenience" or being "left behind" or "out of the loop", and I could hardly care less that some others have a "competitive advantage". " I simply follow my own path, using the tools that work for me, the ones I understand, as I see fit for my own aims. And I feel oddly happy that most of what I do, my parochial craft, will be washed away and forgotten.

But (quietly and not that it matters), I also suspect that such an "authentic" attitude is something the great organising Moloch machine shits its pants in fear of, because the authentic human cannot coexist with it and thus requires its destruction.

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

#44

Post by quonn »

ordu wrote: post #40
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…

> 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. Phlogisto…

> 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.

I agree with your second point, but not with the first point. How is it impossible? Just sit and observe. _That_ is certainly possible. So you seem to imply that the experience was not what you expected it to be so I need to ask: What did you expect it to be?

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

No, it only means that observations cannot be made without an observer.

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

#45

Post by quonn »

mnky9800n wrote: post #42
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…

I suppose if you cannot imagine a world without an observer than there's not much abstractions within you.

You cannot make observations without an observer. Furthermore any imagined world without an observer is necessarily largely shaped by that very observer who imagines it.

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

#46

Post by robertlagrant »

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.

Does this preclude love from being part of reality?

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

#47

Post by nonethewiser »

nonrandomstring wrote: post #29
nonethewiser wrote: post #23

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. Or, you want the information. If so, compressed is better.

> you want the information There is no information. A piece like this by P.K Dick cannot be tokenised and reduced to a minimal takeaway wrap sans the experience . It was written to be read. Sometimes you just have to jump into the rabbit hole and enjoy the fall.

I didnt read very much of it so ill take your word. But the title certainly sounds like it includes instructions on how to do something.

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

#48

Post by thfuran »

quonn wrote: post #41
Ensorceled wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It‘s a statement about the content of the world without an observer, but the observer-world interface is the more interesting part, the observer cannot be removed and any beliefs come from the observer in the first place. It’s literally a statement ABOUT the observer-world interface. In general, assuming anything from Dick is pedestrian is kind of foolish.

Well that‘s exactly why I‘m criticizing that statement. It places an undue amount of trust in the state of our mind regardless of what that state may be at any time and calls that truth.

The quote places absolutely no trust in the state of your mind. That's the point.

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

#49

Post by RetroTechie »

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.

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.”

Great quote.

I've always liked this one:

"I substitute your view of reality for my own."

This is true in so many ways. The world as I see it, is not what it is: at most, it is reality, as perceived by my senses, processed by my brain. Which are different from someone else's.

So even if that underlying reality is the same (the simplest assumption), then your view & my view of it are different.

This holds even in science: if 2 scientists take a measurement from the same object, using 2 different instruments, what they're recording is not the object's state, but its effect on the instrument measuring it. Worse: not even that, but the state of that instrument, as perceived by the scientist's senses & processed by their brain. Worse: that processing converted back into words, or writings, and perceived by someone else hearing or reading those.

Now of course science is extremely good at making such measurements match. 2 Scientists may read the same instrument, or each other's. One may take the scientist out of the equation by having the instrument record directly. But in this case it's 'the instrument's view of reality' that it records. You have replaced a scientist + their instrument with an instrument alone. An experiment may be set up such, that [whatever is measured] & instrument measuring it, are considered to be the same. But it doesn't do away with the fundamental problem: reality passing through layers & layers of filtering and perception.

That is: if underlying reality is the same for all of us. Occam's razor would say so, and it seems very likely, but again this is fundamentally an assumption.

That said: what most of us can agree on after objective measurements using well designed instruments, photographs, comparing notes etc, is good enough for me. When I walk through a forest & smell the air, feel free to perceive that forest in whatever is your view of reality. Just don't try to convince me that forest isn't there or doesn't have a smell. I'll see a doctor when I think my eyes, nose or brain isn't working properly, thank you very much!

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

#50

Post by jacquesm »

nonrandomstring wrote: post #43

For me, the most powerful passage in this one is; """ The authentic human being is one of us who instinctively knows what he should not do, and, in addition, he will balk at doing it. He will refuse to do it, even if this brings down dread consequences to him and to those whom he loves. This, to me, is the ultimately heroic trait of ordinary people; they say no to the tyrant and they calmly take the consequences of t…

It's the mirror image to "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.". Unfortunately history has taught us that P.K. Dick's view is rarely the prevailing one and that even if plenty of people are exactly like that too many of them are not and they will happily do that which they instinctively know they should not do. Especially if there is money or authority involved.
Post reply on HN