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

51–60 of 148 posts

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

#51

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

RetroTechie wrote: post #49
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…

Reality is what people with power and influence agree it is.

Sometimes - as in science - many of those people are trying to understand it in good faith. The output is still subjective in the sense that it's filtered through the limitations of human perception and cognition. But it's reliable and consistent for most humans.

Sometimes - as in politics, religion, and economics - "reality" is a story told by actors with vested interests, usually promoted for their own benefit.

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

#52

Post by jacquesm »

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…

> From my point of view it certainly goes away and the world _will be_ flat.

No, it simply means that you will start to build on a flawed premise and will run into the limitations of your knowledge sooner rather than later. Being informed about the world allows you to make better decisions and to reach further in the achievement of your goals. That is why the scientific method is so successful and why science and not obstinacy has driven us forward further in the last 500 years than in all of the preceding millennia together.

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

#53

Post by slushh »

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…

>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.

Said mind is not only created by the genes.

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

#54

Post by Cthulhu_ »

jacquesm wrote: post #50
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.

Subtle difference, Dick's statement doesn't say that "good men should do nothing", but that "good men should refuse to do bad things". Setting boundaries, in other words.

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

#55

Post by Cthulhu_ »

nonethewiser wrote: post #24
_hzw wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no adventure if you know what lies ahead. But I suppose some are fine without adventure in their lives.

Is this the sole source of adventure? Windy but stylish online articles?

No, there are more.

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

#56

Post by bryanrasmussen »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #51
RetroTechie wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

Reality is what people with power and influence agree it is. Sometimes - as in science - many of those people are trying to understand it in good faith. The output is still subjective in the sense that it's filtered through the limitations of human perception and cognition. But it's reliable and consistent for most humans. Sometimes - as in politics, religion, and economics - "reality" is a story told by actors with…

>Reality is what people with power and influence agree it is.

The Great Heresiarchs of Phantaz agreed that the binding of men to Earth was such that the rational mind would allow one to be free of it, and to defy even gravity if such was the desire.

Confirmed in the correctness of their philosophy they walked as a group off the great cliff of Meresyp.

Unfortunately their ideas did not die with them, for ideas are immortal whereas men are not.

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

#58

Post by TeMPOraL »

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…

Nah, Moloch loves the "authentic" humans, because they can be bullshitted into doing anything. Yes, they'll resist any direct attempts at telling them how to live their lives - but they'll do that as much to a tyrant, as to their democratic representatives, or their own community. Inertia is not a virtue - neither for an object, nor for a human.

The way against "authentic" humans' resistance/reactance is something Moloch figured out long ago: take it slow, manipulate their beliefs about themselves and the world. This even scales better than tyranny. Marketers and advertisers know and use this. Politicians and activists and religious leaders know and use this. "Authentic" humans will follow their intuition off a cliff if you make them believe it'll make them feel safe, or fulfill their lust. Easy when you're also responsible for instilling fear and/or desire in them in the first place.

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

#59

Post by gregw2 »

Sakos wrote: post #32
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 bree…

Fascinating! Kagi managed to automatically omit and abstract away all the Christian-specific perspective leaving us with something purely deist in its presentation.

I wonder if that’s a coincidence, or something inherent in the way LLM synthesizes word frequencies from the trainer’s chosen corpus that leads to that tendency/outcome.

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

#60

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

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…

This becomes Phildickian, when e.g. the "tyrant" is a doorknob.

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7444685-the-door-refused-to...

Bear in mind that this was written in 1969. Smart doorknobs were not a thing then, but PKD went right to the "pay per use", a robot programmed to lawfully exploit the common guy, situation.

Post reply on HN