Thread

1. general_reveal · 1789632157 · focus · HN ↗

   [dead]

   1. n4r9 · 1789634153 · focus · HN ↗

      This is probably a reference to Hume's problem of induction, i.e. that observing a regularity in the past cannot justify assuming that it will hold in the future. It's vaguely related to the article, but talking about "time windows" and "Mathers" muddles the point.

      1. general_reveal · 1789634390 · focus · HN ↗

         Is it vaguely related? He wondered why measuring anything even works. Why wouldn’t the measurement disappear, thus making all this measuring pointless? Because, apparently the measurement(s) are true each time-step, and it will be true for that time, until it’s not true. Why it reasonably works well for us? Well, God , I guess. Same way the Sun doesn’t burn our skin off (God, I guess, but some have issues with that).

         Sorry, I had to critique that immediately because I could already see that other second paragraph I quoted coming, as in, this author probably worships Math, Science, and those that do it, certainly not God, because he was unable to characterize the phenomena of it as related to God.

         1. GoblinSlayer · 1789639659 · focus · HN ↗

            Measurement works because universe moves in a simple way. As Hume indicates, you need very complex motion for irregularity, maybe even sentient, but sentient universe is fairy tale.

            1. pixl97 · 1789665713 · focus · HN ↗

               > but sentient universe is fairy tale.

               Ehhhhh.... this is actually a much bigger claim than you realize and to immediately dismiss it leads to some problematic issues in the continuum of reality.

               Without a rigorous falsifiable definition of sentient at all scales it can apply at best the problem is undefined. Are brains sentient? Are neurons sentient? Are the actual algorithms these structures run sentient? Without those answers we can really only say "The universe is probably not sentient".

               Also, you are the universe experiencing itself.

               1. GoblinSlayer · 1789679744 · focus · HN ↗

                  For a regularity to be broken, the phenomenon causing this regularity should be sentient to break the regularity in an intelligently chosen way. It doesn&#x27;t matter how sentient are neurons, they don&#x27;t affect anything and might as well be absent. See <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Discovery_of_Neptune" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Discovery_of_Neptune - what neurons did there?

                  1. general_reveal · 1789681636 · focus · HN ↗

                     [dead]

                     1. rramadass · 1789706687 · focus · HN ↗

                        This is just meaningless twaddle.

                        Read the chapter on &quot;Chance&quot; in Poincare&#x27;s &quot;Science and Method&quot; linked to here - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=49743377">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=49743377

                        Randomness&#x2F;Chance itself is amenable to laws by which we can estimate its bounds. In one sense everything is chance since the deterministic laws themselves operate within approximation bounds. When the approximation bound in the effect is similar in magnitude to that in the cause and both are very small, we call it &quot;deterministic&quot; whereas when the approximation bound in the effect is much larger than that in the cause for no discernible reason we say &quot;chance&quot; is operating.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.