Hacker News Reader

Comment by MilStdJunkie | Hacker News Reader

Not quite. I don't ascribe completely to the notion that we can't figure stuff out. But we do need to be careful about assuming that things like 3d topology (aka "inside", "outside", when the mathematical spaces we're looking might have no equivalent concept), cause/effect -- or even the spatial dimensions themselves -- are fundamental. Particularly when we're talking about black holes. It's hard, because our brains are optimized to deal with this very specific slice of spacetime we've evolved in, so we keep falling back into the trap of our words.

View on HN

The thing is, I'm not sure how much an actor emerging from a system can learn about the system. Not saying we can't, 'cause I don't know, nobody does. It's just intriguing in it's own way.

We may not be able to probe the system directly, but we can take guesses at some of its properties using a powerful tool: logic.

For instance, if it is true that something cannot come out of nothing (ex nihilo nihil fit), and its clearly true that something exists (cogito, ergo sum), then it must be the case that whatever base reality is, it must have always existed. This base reality could be god or some base physical laws or something else, but unless someone can show that the premise is incorrect, we can surmise the eternal nature of reality.

While I see your point from my human perspective, what we call logic is directly dependent on the product of the system it emerges from, meaning our brains are inherently limited, hence cannot be trusted. Cogito, ergo sum is a meaningless statement in this context. Take quantum mechanics for example. Makes all our logic go away.

> our brains are inherently limited, hence cannot be trusted.

Yeah I agree with this in general. When it comes to logic though, it is hard to see how for instance the law of the excluded middle could be wrong. But then that may be just the limited brain talking :)

> Cogito, ergo sum is a meaningless statement in this context.

Not sure how. The fact that I exist is irrefutable. Everything else could be just a dream, say if base reality is that I'm a brain-in-a-vat, but my own experience says that I exist, and no one can deny that, not even God.

> Take quantum mechanics for example. Makes all our logic go away.

That doesn't sound like the right way to think. QM, and science in general, is based on observations, and those are always subject to revision. Tomorrow, all laws of physics could flip, making all our current science moot. The only role of logic here is to make sure that our techniques and conclusions are consistent and not affected by the arbitrary whims of human thoughts and desires. Logic actually helps humans go beyond the biological limitations.

We invented the concept of right and wrong, for a reason. Or true and false, same thing. It's useful. The experience of my own existence - and the assumed irrefutability of it - is based on features beyond my control. How do I make my heart beat? No idea. I just do. Is logic itself, like science, not based on observations? Anyway, nice conversation!

> We invented the concept of right and wrong, for a reason. Or true and false, same thing.

Ah morally that's correct. But in general, such thinking is giving up too much.

Capital T Truth exists irrespective of humans, no? For instance, Quantum Mechanics was True before it was discovered, and would have remained True whether or not there were ever any humans to investigate it. The same for whatever base reality is.

> The experience of my own existence - and the assumed irrefutability of it - is based on features beyond my control. How do I make my heart beat?

The way we experience it, sure. The fact that we experience something, be it a true reality or an illusion in a matrix, is irrefutable. That's exactly "what cogito, ergo sum" [0] is talking about. In fact, thinking along these lines is what led Descartes to come up with this principle. In a world of uncertainty where we cannot even trust our own senses, how can we arrive at any Truth? And he realized: everything else we think and experience could be false, but the fact that I am something that is able to think and exist is itself a truth that no one can take away! It's history is pretty interesting.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito%2C_ergo_sum

Some of the most beautiful moments in science - for me, anyway - come about when there's a refresh on perspective. You'll have something like the ptolemaic system, or phlogiston, or the luminiferous ether, and a tiny push in perception reveals a bigger picture, a deeper understanding.

That push is often subtle, but incontrovertible.

Modern cosmology really feels like it's on the cusp of something like that today - perhaps in how spatial dimensions emerge, or some other thing - underlying our more stolid mental models.

To explain how that relates to your point re: stages. The stage of our perception isn't stable. When we started voyaging on ships, that changed it. We went to orbit, whew boy. Today, maybe our terminally-online presence is changing our notions of distance and "here-ness". These sorts of changes can often be a trigger when it comes to these perceptual shifts, as people grow up with a somewhat larger universe than their great grandsires.

This is known as the anthropic principle.

I think you have misused the word ascribe.

No, I apparently dodged the trap of words pretty handily there when I meant to type "subscribe".

I apologize, I'm dealing exclusively in XSLT today and I can feel my brain screaming.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com