Live data from Hacker News

Do Our Questions Create the World?

blogs.scientificamerican.com

91–92 of 92 posts

Re: Do Our Questions Create the World?

#91
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it both chilling and lovely. Because on one hand, life, endless adventure, full of surprises, insights, new understandings and experiences, feelings, etc. On the other, absolute, fundamental, loneliness (sophistry?) of our own nature - having an individual sense of self but also feeling related to everything we define as not 'I'. Why this life, why is this the one I have? Where did all of this come from? How d…

There are reductionist answers to these questions, albeit incomplete. We know about evolution, we know about the Big Bang. We are not sure by what exact mechanism consciousness works -- if we can even define it properly enough to begin with, but going by our current model of the universe we know it is the result of the Big Bang, and evolution. There are intermediate answers to questions like "Why this life, why is th…

The circular thing with dictionaries - that makes sense. I've always seen dictionaries as infinite. Shakespeare invented words. Computational definitions of symbols, mathematics, etc are different.

I don't really see it as circular, more like a spiral. Each layer of computation or math - in 3s. Computer, mind, paper. Or symbol relates to symbol through symbol. Deductive proof techniques, the memory of all existing knowledge filling in the gaps between each sequential step. Layers of definitions stack, those are computer programs.

https://youtu.be/Ad4T-j_bOVc

The internet makes so much of life weird. Memories, words. Everything a reminder, automatic.

Re: Do Our Questions Create the World?

#92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wheeler is a fine physicist. Claiming "consciousness is fundamental to reality" is not.

I personally wouldn’t characterize it from bit that way, but it’s not as crazy as it seems. We know that subjective reality exists because we directly experience it. But the evidence for an objective reality is shaky at best. If it exists it isn’t anything like the classical world we inhabit - that has been proven multiple times over.

>We know that subjective reality exists because we directly experience it. But the evidence for an objective reality is shaky at best.

Objective reality can kill me, so I'd consider that rather less shaky than the images that appear when I sleep.

Post reply on HN