Note this website appears to be based around the personal theories of a scientist rather than a presentation of the consensus of the field.
Perhaps similar to somebody more famous like Harari in that respect.
The author appears to be legitimate in his scientific background but the repeated implications of the revolutionary nature of his work are somewhat crankish; this is a personal blog so possibly he just needs a good editor (he says he is published elsewhere).
Just something to bear in mind as you read - not that there isn't anything to gain from it; but the boundary between well-grounded theory and speculative philosophic beliefs may not be clear - which to be fair arguably comes somewhat with the territory here.
I found the article fascinating because it 'resonates' with my own personal truth.
I don't have the math background or a big enough brain to hold so many ideas, and equations, and relationships between all three, to come up with any kind of scientific explanation for why I believe what I believe.
The author seems to have it though.
Classic thinkers like Aristotle could still arrive at something that is true unto itself, without bringing in physics.
Any useful discussion between two entities must begin from some common knowledge: and because you have personal experience, you have knowledge, and therefore some idea of what is true.
Dirac says we should look for beauty in math: he didn't ever provide an explanation for why, just that it seems proper and something Mathematicians know only through experience. Philosophy is at the heart of truth.
We should argue against the author's theories. I can't, but I also won't dismiss his ideas just because it feels bad.
Using Aristotle's deductive reasoning, I also believe we exist within a black hole.
By examining intelligence and time: we can arrive at a conclusion that intelligence arises from observation if order that unfolds into chaos. And anything intelligent, anything able to notice the unfolding must itself resist chaos through localized order: intelligence.
We are the universe observing itself.
Intelligence and imagination allows us to predict future events.
I believe we all would make the exact same choices if we lived the exact same experiences in the same bodies. This makes me feel strangely connected, and keeps me more open-minded.
I'm a huge fan of Aristotle. He's more or less the founding father of all western intellectual tradition. But he believed things like continuous force is necessary to keep an object in motion and object released from a rotational anchor would move perpendicular to the rotation's tangent. Beware any non-experimental version of science that relies entirely upon deducing what seems obvious to you from first principles. Even with strong math behind it, you get things like zero point energy density computed from quantum mechanics being off by triple-digit orders of magnitude from the true observed value, often called the worst prediction in the history of physics. Only reality, not your mind, holds truth. There is no "personal" truth, aside from true statements regarding your own feelings, beliefs, and other indicators of purely subjective internal state.
'A person is many things: some things are useful. And usefulness can apply to ourselves, or to others.'
I choose deductive reasoning from Aristotle and apply it to my own experience to reach my own conclusions. But you're right, he believed many things that turned out not to be true, and it reduces his credentials and should lessen how much belief I give to his ideas. Was the opening idea I left there 'useful' to you? I have no idea, it was useful to me.
But, if the tool is extremely useful, and feels elegant, perhaps there is some 'truth' to the tool itself and it should be considered carefully....
Someone literally posted an article about Dirac and 'beautiful math' here the other day. He suggested Einstein's special relativity persists today and spread because the idea was beautiful, and sake of beauty itself helped it to spread and be more 'true'.
mellosouls · · focus · HN ↗
Perhaps similar to somebody more famous like Harari in that respect.
The author appears to be legitimate in his scientific background but the repeated implications of the revolutionary nature of his work are somewhat crankish; this is a personal blog so possibly he just needs a good editor (he says he is published elsewhere).
Just something to bear in mind as you read - not that there isn't anything to gain from it; but the boundary between well-grounded theory and speculative philosophic beliefs may not be clear - which to be fair arguably comes somewhat with the territory here.
itsalwaysgood · · focus · HN ↗
I don't have the math background or a big enough brain to hold so many ideas, and equations, and relationships between all three, to come up with any kind of scientific explanation for why I believe what I believe.
The author seems to have it though.
Classic thinkers like Aristotle could still arrive at something that is true unto itself, without bringing in physics.
Any useful discussion between two entities must begin from some common knowledge: and because you have personal experience, you have knowledge, and therefore some idea of what is true.
Dirac says we should look for beauty in math: he didn't ever provide an explanation for why, just that it seems proper and something Mathematicians know only through experience. Philosophy is at the heart of truth.
We should argue against the author's theories. I can't, but I also won't dismiss his ideas just because it feels bad.
Using Aristotle's deductive reasoning, I also believe we exist within a black hole.
By examining intelligence and time: we can arrive at a conclusion that intelligence arises from observation if order that unfolds into chaos. And anything intelligent, anything able to notice the unfolding must itself resist chaos through localized order: intelligence.
We are the universe observing itself.
Intelligence and imagination allows us to predict future events.
I believe we all would make the exact same choices if we lived the exact same experiences in the same bodies. This makes me feel strangely connected, and keeps me more open-minded.
nonameiguess · · focus · HN ↗
itsalwaysgood · · focus · HN ↗
I choose deductive reasoning from Aristotle and apply it to my own experience to reach my own conclusions. But you're right, he believed many things that turned out not to be true, and it reduces his credentials and should lessen how much belief I give to his ideas. Was the opening idea I left there 'useful' to you? I have no idea, it was useful to me.
But, if the tool is extremely useful, and feels elegant, perhaps there is some 'truth' to the tool itself and it should be considered carefully....
Someone literally posted an article about Dirac and 'beautiful math' here the other day. He suggested Einstein's special relativity persists today and spread because the idea was beautiful, and sake of beauty itself helped it to spread and be more 'true'.
Is this proper? I don't know.