4 ms·

Pretty much that. Sorry if I left my fact-checking behind but that stopped once I visited CERN in search of the "truth". You might be surprised at how many qu

Pretty much that. Sorry if I left my fact-checking behind but that stopped once I visited CERN in search of the "truth". You might be surprised at how many quantum physicists agree with my odd world-view. It gets to a point where you can't go further (literally) ... then you get this.

iagreewithyou1 7y ago
.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- eternalny1 7y ago
  It was Fire in the Mind by Johnson if I could pin it to one book. It's been a path. And if I fit into one place, it's HN ... software engineer for too many decades. This is the one question I still have, and that will likely remain unanswered.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - monktastic1 7y ago
    Just wanted to say: I like the way you think. In fact, I'm writing up a piece about how to arrive at (what is presumably) a similar realization. In brief: (1) notice consciousness, (2) notice that it's impossible (in a well-defined sense) to know what is causing it. If done right, there can be an epiphany.
- eternalny1 7y ago
  > I know most will not agree with me and that is fine, life is a path of discovery You're god-damn right (don't worry about the religious repercussions of that, me and god are OK). Discover, enjoy.
brankoB 7y ago
Why believe that a god is reponsible for the gaps rather than believe that we simply don't have the answers yet and that eventually science will give us them (as it has in the past, countless times)?
- eternalny1 7y ago
  So we essentially arised out of (nothing, at this point) to understand why we did? Gap of logic.
  - glitchc 7y ago
    Not at all. It’s perfectly okay in science to say we don’t know how that happens yet. Deciding that we’ll never know is an irrational leap. The “never” is a strong statement and requires proof. Can you prove never? I don’t think so. Then why assume it?
    - monktastic1 7y ago
      Well, there's never a way for me to know whether solipsism is true, or to even calculate a (meaningful) probability of it being true. In fact, this applies to probably infinitely many strange metaphysicses. All I know is that I'm conscious (or, more precisely, that "consciousness is"). I can say that "assuming the standard scientific metaphysics is correct, science might solve it," but that assumption is enormous and untestable.
  - d1zzy 7y ago
    That's assuming that "arising" is done as some part of logical plan. The universe doesn't have to be logical, physical phenomena doesn't have to follow human observation and logic. It's crazy hubris to assume the opposite IMO.
  - eternalny1 7y ago
    > So we essentially arised out of (nothing, at this point) Think about that for one second, if you can ever comprehend what this "nothing" is. There was something before you, and Einstein got it with regards to the fact you can't understand that. We're getting closer. Rest easy.

iagreewithyou1 7y ago

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
eternalny1 7y ago
It was Fire in the Mind by Johnson if I could pin it to one book. It's been a path. And if I fit into one place, it's HN ... software engineer for too many decades. This is the one question I still have, and that will likely remain unanswered.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- monktastic1 7y ago
  Just wanted to say: I like the way you think. In fact, I'm writing up a piece about how to arrive at (what is presumably) a similar realization. In brief: (1) notice consciousness, (2) notice that it's impossible (in a well-defined sense) to know what is causing it. If done right, there can be an epiphany.
eternalny1 7y ago
> I know most will not agree with me and that is fine, life is a path of discovery You're god-damn right (don't worry about the religious repercussions of that, me and god are OK). Discover, enjoy.

brankoB 7y ago

Why believe that a god is reponsible for the gaps rather than believe that we simply don't have the answers yet and that eventually science will give us them (as it has in the past, countless times)?

eternalny1 7y ago
So we essentially arised out of (nothing, at this point) to understand why we did? Gap of logic.
- glitchc 7y ago
  Not at all. It’s perfectly okay in science to say we don’t know how that happens yet. Deciding that we’ll never know is an irrational leap. The “never” is a strong statement and requires proof. Can you prove never? I don’t think so. Then why assume it?
  - monktastic1 7y ago
    Well, there's never a way for me to know whether solipsism is true, or to even calculate a (meaningful) probability of it being true. In fact, this applies to probably infinitely many strange metaphysicses. All I know is that I'm conscious (or, more precisely, that "consciousness is"). I can say that "assuming the standard scientific metaphysics is correct, science might solve it," but that assumption is enormous and untestable.
- d1zzy 7y ago
  That's assuming that "arising" is done as some part of logical plan. The universe doesn't have to be logical, physical phenomena doesn't have to follow human observation and logic. It's crazy hubris to assume the opposite IMO.
- eternalny1 7y ago
  > So we essentially arised out of (nothing, at this point) Think about that for one second, if you can ever comprehend what this "nothing" is. There was something before you, and Einstein got it with regards to the fact you can't understand that. We're getting closer. Rest easy.