3 ms·
I kind of see what you're getting at, but don't think you've described it well. My attempt to restate your position: Suppose you write a program that just so h
by voxl 5y ago
I kind of see what you're getting at, but don't think you've described it well.
My attempt to restate your position: Suppose you write a program that just so happens to log information every leap day. No one uses the information, it doesn't effect the rest of the observable output. If you delete this logging from the program, no one else notices.
The complete observable properties of the universe (the program) include this logging, but the functioning of it is not really dependent on the logging. Thus, we probably should expect that there are some aspects of the universe that are independent, they don't really matter (or at least don't substantially matter) beyond their own observation.
- antonvs 5y agoThe logging analogy doesn't capture what I was referring to. Logging is a feature that someone deliberately adds to an application. It has a purpose even if no-one uses it. I'm talking about features that (a) were not intentionally designed and (b) have no "purpose" - i.e. do not "participate in physics necessary for the observable universe functioning," per the original commenter. The point is that for a feature to have a purpose implies an intentional design. If you assume the universe was intentionally designed, then yes, one might expect all features of the universe to have a purpose. Although as Gödel pointed out, this may not be possible - even intentionally constructed systems end up with features that weren't part of the intention, but rather are unavoidable consequences of the design. If you don't assume intentional design, then there's no reason to expect that all features of the universe have a purpose.