71–80 of 362 posts
In an alternate universe: the lady couldn’t walk, got obese and died of a heart attack 10 years ago. So, the past isn’t true until it is and then, maybe, it’s even worse. Not sure what to make of this story.
In our heads, we have models of the past and models of the future. Sure, there is an asymmetry between knowing the past and the future - due to thermodynamics. Still, in both cases, it is good to think of these as probabilistic models, far from any certainty.
Do you know the concept of space-time, block universe, B-theory of time, etc? How physics assumes that the laws of physics don't know the notion of "now"? And how physicists usually start every calculation with "let X denote the set of events", all the past and future events? Isn't that depressing? The future is true, even if we can't know it. (Even in a finite, discrete and deterministic universe, which we can compu…
How could that possibly support the relativity of simultaneity? Different reference frames disagree on what is happening "now."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How could that possibly support the relativity of simultaneity? Different reference frames disagree on what is happening "now."
I mean, relativity already means everything depends on location, so this should just fit right in, right? The contents of your “slice” are from right now at your location, from 20 years ago at locations 20ly from you, 30 years ago at 30ly, etc. We literally can’t know what’s happening at any time other than 20 years ago at locations 20ly from us, after all. So I’d say this jives well with the various “curves” relativ…
edit: typo
He's saying what happened, happened. What you make it mean, is up to you. The story you tell yourself, is a story you can rewrite. This beautiful story is one of the truest things I've read on HN in 8 years. This guy lived crippled by what the story he told himself about what happened for half his life. Then with a new story, a new encounter, he set himself free. Incredibly brave to tell this tale. Some people live i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the point is that interpretation is all we really have. We believe that memories are these absolute things, but rigorous studies show that no human being remembers things perfectly, even when they believe they do. For many years as a kid, I knew Santa Claus was real because I had seen him come to my house. My faith was unshakable, because I had observed it with my own eyes. Years later, I found out that on Ch…
Yes, I agree that “interpretation is all we have” is the point they are trying to make. I also agree that there is an important point there. Memories are often not what we think they are. However, in the story, the author did NOT have a memory of breaking a woman’s back. He had a memory of getting in an accident. He interpreted it as his fault. He was told that he broke her back. Not his interpretation. It was a beli…
I acknowledge that not discarding it can also lead to negative outcomes, as in TFA.
The moral of the story: drive safely, pay attention always!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, I agree that “interpretation is all we have” is the point they are trying to make. I also agree that there is an important point there. Memories are often not what we think they are. However, in the story, the author did NOT have a memory of breaking a woman’s back. He had a memory of getting in an accident. He interpreted it as his fault. He was told that he broke her back. Not his interpretation. It was a beli…
I am not sure that differentiating between "that which I physically sensed with my own body" and "information I received from others" leads to particularly good place. Yes, we should probably put a little more weight on things we experienced, but even they are subject to massive differences of interpretation based on prior experience and knowledge. Humanity has made enormous strides by being able to believe in inform…
But I think it would be crazy to not to differentiate between immediate experience and what we've been told. Not even because immediate experience is always more accurate. Sometimes it is NOT, but it's a different source of information subject to different problems. Often more trustworthy but not always, though the "not always" can be ameliorated a bit by understanding some of the limits of personal experience.
I was really only taking issue with "interpretation is all we have" applying in the original story - that there is a difference between "my interpretation about something I experienced" and "my beliefs about a thing I did not experience".
Yes the author's story changed, but it changed because he found out that he was lied to by the police (or perhaps, if we want to be generous, "unintentionally misled") not because his memory was fallible.
To get back to the point I took issue with, in the story "the facts" mattered an awful lot. It was a lack of access to the facts that caused the problem not "an incorrect interpretation" of what the author experienced. The latter happens all the time, but interpreting our experience differently (e.g., reprocessing a traumatic memory with self-compassion and seeing it as unfortunate and something to learn from) is a different thing than finding out what we were told was a lie. Both change our story, but one is indeed a reinterpretation and the other is a change in belief or knowledge.
I think it's important to separate those two things. I think some want to treat them as the same. I think that can cause problems.
There is a common conception that we don't know the future, but we know the past. In our heads, we have models of the past and models of the future. Sure, there is an asymmetry between knowing the past and the future - due to thermodynamics. Still, in both cases, it is good to think of these as probabilistic models, far from any certainty.
I think the article is sending a pretty problematic overall message. The underlying story is somewhat interesting. The author went through life with a lot of unnecessary guilt and suffering because he was carrying around a false narrative, and it is true that false narratives happen. But the larger conclusion he tries to draw from it seems really problematic: >History is not true. You can change history. The actual f…
I think that’s what happened here. Author carries guilt about an event. Finds out the guilt was unfounded. This makes them realize a story can change at any moment. So you can change a story at any moment, change the narrative around a situation.
Is this conclusion supported by the story? To your point, no, not really. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong or absurd, either. There may have been a ton of other information in the author’s head and this event unlocked it. Maybe it will for some readers, to. But it’s not something that will stand up to scrutiny.