4 ms·
Are you aware of some proof that it is specific to sentient entities? If not, Occams razor implies we assume it is any macroscopic entity.
by darawk 9y ago
Are you aware of some proof that it is specific to sentient entities? If not, Occams razor implies we assume it is any macroscopic entity.
- TheOtherHobbes 9y agoCan you present a proof that hasn’t been created by a sentient entity? Edit: of course you can, but only in the formal systems sense, which is relativel trivial. What we think of as “proof” in physics is a combination of “this belief creates predictable experiences” and “this abstraction of belief is logically consistent.” The first part is subjective - our beliefs about physics create predictable experiences for us, but we have no idea how large the entire domain of possible experiences is. The second part is a tar pit full of bones, haunted by undefinability theorems. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_undefinability_theorem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_undefinability_th... So any suggestion that physics efficiently reveals the secret mechanisms of the universe is a conceit. Physics reveals what we’re able to deduce about the universe given the biases built into our experience of sentience. When weird things fall out of quantum theory, this makes it hard to know if the weirdness is truly out there, or if it’s an artifact of our limited sentience.