3 ms·

There are some core questions in ethics that might be considered so fundamental that they almost don't seem like religious question at all. The Observer Proble

There are some core questions in ethics that might be considered so fundamental that they almost don't seem like religious question at all. The Observer Problem is a good example. I experience life from this singular human's perspective. Why this specific one? What mechanism dictates which human my "observer" occupies? Why even a human and not an animal? The word "soul" is a poor descriptor because it is associated with so much more, but the Observer Problem is real - or at least it might be. I heard a theory is that there is another higher order time dimension, and all of our "observers" are actually the same one living in some sequence "simultaneously". ...but that doesnt really solve the dilemma either because even that sequence would need some mysterious ordering mechanism. ...but in all that there are core questions about what is time, what is space, what is energy, what happens to the universe... etc One thing I tell me daughters is that death isn't scary. ...because we exist inna limited space and time. We should be no sadder to not exist in the future than not existing 10m to the left. We cannot be eternal, but if you recognize that time is just a dimension, then our existence is permanant in the history of the universe. Nothing can undo what we did and who we were.

wruza 6y ago
Why even a human and not an animal? Sorry for off-topic, but The Observer is my great interest as well. Why not an animal? Sure, why not. Imagine that your ears, eyes, taste, etc are shut down and your consciousness too. Now you feel yourself as a rock. Why not a star? Why not a computer game character? There is a bunch of problems to think of before you answer "no". The same for "yes", because there is a theory that it's a human mind that thinks of that Observer concept and makes itself "feel" it, but... it is not real, a perception mistake required for a mind to function in reality, like many others. This has something to do with models, but it is hard topic on its own. It seems that The Observer is one of things that don't have a quick answer and may not have one at all.
- mapcars 6y ago
  But the animals are there, the rocks and stars too. And they can "ask" the same question - why not human? To me it's rather a silly question.
  - wruza 6y ago
    With distinct Observers (like distinct photons or distinct fires) you have to solve the "where it comes from and where it goes" problem. It is not a problem if you think of it as an Observing Field (like em-field or plasma state). There is no "why not", because sure it is everywhere, but only complex enough interactive systems can ignite it at their current location. That's still pure speculation, but more aligned with Occam's and has to be considered as both a competing idea and as an answer to "why in me and not in xyz". I stopped at this crossroad: - distinct and only me (1) - distinct and multiple (N) - a field-like phenomenon (~inf) - a perception mistake (0) First two bring a hierarchy problem (why, how). A third has a scientific potential-like flavor. The last one is boring. Not sure if I ever get any further than that, sadly.
- koheripbal 6y ago
  > it is not real, a perception mistake Is it? There's no way to demonstrate this.
mapcars 6y ago
>Why this specific one? That's rather a simple one, every point of experience is "this specific one" for itself, but in reality there are no specific points. If you were a fish in previous life you would only know that and the question would be the same. If you mean "why" in terms of "how", the mechanics of it, well as far as I can see it's way bigger than our intellect and in turn language can handle. One assumption I have is that at the moment of death we will get it, not intellectually because the brain won't work but rather experientially. >our existence is permanant in the history of the universe Tell me how do you really, existentially separate yourself from the universe?
- koheripbal 6y ago
  > If you were a fish ... Exactly, but why am I not a fish?

wruza 6y ago

Why even a human and not an animal? Sorry for off-topic, but The Observer is my great interest as well. Why not an animal? Sure, why not. Imagine that your ears, eyes, taste, etc are shut down and your consciousness too. Now you feel yourself as a rock. Why not a star? Why not a computer game character? There is a bunch of problems to think of before you answer "no". The same for "yes", because there is a theory that it's a human mind that thinks of that Observer concept and makes itself "feel" it, but... it is not real, a perception mistake required for a mind to function in reality, like many others. This has something to do with models, but it is hard topic on its own. It seems that The Observer is one of things that don't have a quick answer and may not have one at all.

mapcars 6y ago
But the animals are there, the rocks and stars too. And they can "ask" the same question - why not human? To me it's rather a silly question.
- wruza 6y ago
  With distinct Observers (like distinct photons or distinct fires) you have to solve the "where it comes from and where it goes" problem. It is not a problem if you think of it as an Observing Field (like em-field or plasma state). There is no "why not", because sure it is everywhere, but only complex enough interactive systems can ignite it at their current location. That's still pure speculation, but more aligned with Occam's and has to be considered as both a competing idea and as an answer to "why in me and not in xyz". I stopped at this crossroad: - distinct and only me (1) - distinct and multiple (N) - a field-like phenomenon (~inf) - a perception mistake (0) First two bring a hierarchy problem (why, how). A third has a scientific potential-like flavor. The last one is boring. Not sure if I ever get any further than that, sadly.
koheripbal 6y ago
> it is not real, a perception mistake Is it? There's no way to demonstrate this.

mapcars 6y ago

>Why this specific one? That's rather a simple one, every point of experience is "this specific one" for itself, but in reality there are no specific points. If you were a fish in previous life you would only know that and the question would be the same. If you mean "why" in terms of "how", the mechanics of it, well as far as I can see it's way bigger than our intellect and in turn language can handle. One assumption I have is that at the moment of death we will get it, not intellectually because the brain won't work but rather experientially. >our existence is permanant in the history of the universe Tell me how do you really, existentially separate yourself from the universe?

koheripbal 6y ago
> If you were a fish ... Exactly, but why am I not a fish?