3 ms·

http://www.kfs.org/jonathan/witt/t563en.html http://www.kfs.org/jonathan/witt/t563en.html Tractatus 5.6.3 presents the metaphysical problem quite clearly. The

by mbrock 8y ago

http://www.kfs.org/jonathan/witt/t563en.html http://www.kfs.org/jonathan/witt/t563en.html Tractatus 5.6.3 presents the metaphysical problem quite clearly. The perceiving subject is a limit of science, kind of like the big bang which is also fundamentally and inescapably mysterious. You cannot prove or disprove the simulation hypothesis. Of course we exist within a deep and unfathomable mystery, no matter how accurately we can make predictions with the differential equations of physical science. It’s all fundamentally mysterious and not admitting that is ridiculous.

saalweachter 8y ago
Just to point out, things like "what happened before the Big Bang?" are only beyond science until someone comes up with an experiment that tests a theory that encompasses what happened before the Big Bang. Math can prove things unprovable from a specific set of axioms, but in the physical sciences it's a matter of imagination. The question of what stars were made of was once unknowable; now it is a robust field of study. What happened before the Big Bang is unknowable... by current scientific understanding and techniques. Maybe once we unify physics or build colliders the size of solar systems it will become understandable; maybe not.
trevyn 8y ago
It’s not mysterious or important, it’s just where we find ourselves. If we are literally unable to see outside the bounds of the universe or the simulation, it is irrelevant to our experience, because it does not change how we should act. Boggling the mind on the subject does not create larger meaning where literally none exists. Humans have an instinct to make things mysterious and more meaningful than they are because it drives their curiosity and need to explain, which drives their ability to predict, which fulfills the mandate of life to win competition for resources and grow. Introspecting and understanding the perceiver thus answers the question easily. Wittgenstein did not have fMRI machines.
- mbrock 8y ago
  I don’t make any claims about this mystery or try to deal with it in any pseudoscientific way. My stance is something like: empirical science is the functioning mode of investigating and predicting the patterns of observable reality, and there’s no other way of objective inquiry, but there are limits to objective inquiry and it’s proper to say that the existence of the objective and subjective reality is fundamentally mysterious while acknowledging that there is no point to “mysticism” beyond amusement or aesthetic inspiration in the form of awe. The regularity of physical law is also a mystery.

by mbrock 8y ago

saalweachter 8y ago

Just to point out, things like "what happened before the Big Bang?" are only beyond science until someone comes up with an experiment that tests a theory that encompasses what happened before the Big Bang. Math can prove things unprovable from a specific set of axioms, but in the physical sciences it's a matter of imagination. The question of what stars were made of was once unknowable; now it is a robust field of study. What happened before the Big Bang is unknowable... by current scientific understanding and techniques. Maybe once we unify physics or build colliders the size of solar systems it will become understandable; maybe not.

trevyn 8y ago

It’s not mysterious or important, it’s just where we find ourselves. If we are literally unable to see outside the bounds of the universe or the simulation, it is irrelevant to our experience, because it does not change how we should act. Boggling the mind on the subject does not create larger meaning where literally none exists. Humans have an instinct to make things mysterious and more meaningful than they are because it drives their curiosity and need to explain, which drives their ability to predict, which fulfills the mandate of life to win competition for resources and grow. Introspecting and understanding the perceiver thus answers the question easily. Wittgenstein did not have fMRI machines.

mbrock 8y ago
I don’t make any claims about this mystery or try to deal with it in any pseudoscientific way. My stance is something like: empirical science is the functioning mode of investigating and predicting the patterns of observable reality, and there’s no other way of objective inquiry, but there are limits to objective inquiry and it’s proper to say that the existence of the objective and subjective reality is fundamentally mysterious while acknowledging that there is no point to “mysticism” beyond amusement or aesthetic inspiration in the form of awe. The regularity of physical law is also a mystery.