4 ms·

What a fun exploration of an idea! That if we're living in a universe with a creator (simulation or otherwise), even if we're blocked from knowledge of higher p

by dcx 5y ago

What a fun exploration of an idea! That if we're living in a universe with a creator (simulation or otherwise), even if we're blocked from knowledge of higher purposes, we might be able to pick up some hints from looking at the nature of the universe itself. And the three items Scott points out are clever: (a) there are secret depths that pay rewards in exchange for structured intelligence, aka math and science, (b) many religious and psychedelic experiences report similar experiences of interconnectedness and higher meaning, (c) the world is set up in such a way that almost everyone experiences certain important things: love, suffering, growth, family, etc. I'm sure this has been discussed to death in some branch of metaphysics - can anyone share pointers to interesting material? I feel like Bostrom's simulation hypothesis opens up a lot of space here that hasn't been fully explored yet (but I could be wrong).

eru 5y ago
Well, Scott's Unsong is the obvious thing to read if you are into this kind of stuff. Given the nature of the post, you might also like some of the Taoist writings by Raymond Smullyan himself. Eg https://www.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/godTaoist.html https://www.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/godTa... or his book 'The Tao is Silent'.
dvh 5y ago
In ideal world quantum entanglement is possible at any scale, but because their resources are limited, we can entangle only very small objects. They just don't have the resources to entangle larger objects so they introduced decoherence to keep entangled area small.
lmarcos 5y ago
But that's a very human-centric view of reality, isn't it? Sure, we are humans, so we can't (don't want to?) think in a different way. Other living entities in this planet do not experiment all the 3 points above (or at least that's what we know). Who knows what other living entities experiment out there in the universe? It's difficult to extrapolate meaning about reality with a sample of N=1 (humanity), but I guess we can't do better for the moment.
- uticus 5y ago
  From a different, Christian perspective: human-centered view of reality is defined by the Creator of humans. Who also deems that humans are responsible / stewards of all other living entities on the planet. So, not human-centric in sense of we determine our own reality, but is human-centric in that humans are placed in a position of responsibility. "Go to the ant" means "learn from the ant" not "abandon human-like thinking and always see reality as the ant does" (human-centric) because God says to do so (not human-centric).
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
hprotagonist 5y ago
>What a fun exploration of an idea! That if we're living in a universe with a creator (simulation or otherwise), even if we're blocked from knowledge of higher purposes, we might be able to pick up some hints from looking at the nature of the universe itself. This is "Natural Theology". Here's a century's worth of lectures on it: https://www.giffordlectures.org/content/youtube-channel https://www.giffordlectures.org/content/youtube-channel and a quick precis: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-theology/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-theology/ But "observe the world; back out a telos" is _really_ baked into our world-view.
- Zanni 5y ago
  It's also the theme of Carl Sagan's Contact. Skip the movie in favor of the book, which is much better. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contact_(novel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contact_(novel)

by dcx 5y ago

eru 5y ago

Well, Scott's Unsong is the obvious thing to read if you are into this kind of stuff. Given the nature of the post, you might also like some of the Taoist writings by Raymond Smullyan himself. Eg https://www.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/godTaoist.html https://www.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/godTa... or his book 'The Tao is Silent'.

dvh 5y ago

In ideal world quantum entanglement is possible at any scale, but because their resources are limited, we can entangle only very small objects. They just don't have the resources to entangle larger objects so they introduced decoherence to keep entangled area small.

lmarcos 5y ago

But that's a very human-centric view of reality, isn't it? Sure, we are humans, so we can't (don't want to?) think in a different way. Other living entities in this planet do not experiment all the 3 points above (or at least that's what we know). Who knows what other living entities experiment out there in the universe? It's difficult to extrapolate meaning about reality with a sample of N=1 (humanity), but I guess we can't do better for the moment.

uticus 5y ago
From a different, Christian perspective: human-centered view of reality is defined by the Creator of humans. Who also deems that humans are responsible / stewards of all other living entities on the planet. So, not human-centric in sense of we determine our own reality, but is human-centric in that humans are placed in a position of responsibility. "Go to the ant" means "learn from the ant" not "abandon human-like thinking and always see reality as the ant does" (human-centric) because God says to do so (not human-centric).
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

hprotagonist 5y ago

>What a fun exploration of an idea! That if we're living in a universe with a creator (simulation or otherwise), even if we're blocked from knowledge of higher purposes, we might be able to pick up some hints from looking at the nature of the universe itself. This is "Natural Theology". Here's a century's worth of lectures on it: https://www.giffordlectures.org/content/youtube-channel https://www.giffordlectures.org/content/youtube-channel and a quick precis: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-theology/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-theology/ But "observe the world; back out a telos" is _really_ baked into our world-view.

Zanni 5y ago
It's also the theme of Carl Sagan's Contact. Skip the movie in favor of the book, which is much better. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contact_(novel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contact_(novel)