5 ms·
Do we create the world by looking at it?
- ericb 18y agoQuantum mechanics makes me think we live in a computer simulation and at the lowest level (where the most calculations are needed), the world is implemented using a lazy-evaluation scheme to minimize processor usage.
- nazgulnarsil 18y agoquantum mechanics makes me think that the real reality behind everything is actually a smudge of statistical probabilities. our monkey brains have trouble with the implications this because there aren't any analogies we can use to make sense of it. Think about it, we have extreme trouble with any math that describes a reality that can't at least be approximated to the scale and zeitgeist of our own. An alternate life form that lived at a different scale or with different priors (perception of time, causality) would come up with completely different explanations for why the math should be the way it is.
- dougp 18y agosome philosopher thought that the world would pop in and out of existence when it was not being observed. He said that because it did not become inconsistent (blue couch turning red when you looked back at it) was because there was a grand observer god that kept everything under observation and therefore nothing popped in and out.
- simianstyle 18y agodescartes was right all along
- extantproject 18y agoIt's all about the candles! Here I thought it was about Différance.
- smanek 18y agoOne of my favorite stories was about a women who frantically wrote to Bertrand Russel (of Principia Mathematica fame) claiming: "I'm a solipsist and, I have to say, I'm surprised there aren't more of us."
- lg 18y ago> at least one of two long-held physical principles is untenable: Distant events do not affect one other, and properties we wish to observe exist before our measurements. One of these, locality or realism, must be fundamentally incorrect. I'm pretty sure it's the second one. If, say, 2 spinwise-anticorrelated particles had x-spin values prior to measuring their respective x-spins, you wouldn't get Bell's inequalities. Isn't that why they were a big deal?
- nazgulnarsil 18y agoEvery few weeks some extremely old philosophy comes trotting out wearing new clothes. Just read a brief overview of western philosophy and you won't be wowed by this sort of stuff so much. This particular example is the subject-object problem, popularized by Immanuel Kant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject-object_problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject-object_problem
- extantproject 18y agoLook up the word "world" in a dictionary. Then look up the definitions of each of the words in the definition of "world". Then look up the words in those definitions. Continue on like this until you'd rather not.
- Tichy 18y agoCould they not condense the article into one paragraph. I could not find the point among all the useless information, like that one: "On my final morning in vienna, snow was tumbling like dryer sheets as I stared out the window of the IQOQI waiting to speak again with Zeilinger. Suddenly, there was a great flash of lightning and a long roll of thunder as snow continued to fall. I turned around to no one and Zeilinger's assistant appeared. He now had time to talk." Whatever...
- sah 18y agoI like this interpretation: http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/reality_decoherence.asp http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/reality_decoherence.asp Here's the wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence