4 ms·

I kind of don't like this interpretation of events. The speed of causality varies depending on the speed of the causal particles and waves which propagate from

I kind of don't like this interpretation of events. The speed of causality varies depending on the speed of the causal particles and waves which propagate from an event. I was just reading an article on surviving nuclear detonations, and from those you have a few causal events propagating at different rates: the radiation, the shockwaves, the fallout. And if a tree falls in a forest with no one around, it does still make a sound.

Swizec 4y ago
The tree makes air move, but you need a subjective experience to turn that into sound.
- Sebb767 4y ago
  That depends on whether you define sound as air waves/vibration or the sensation of hearing. Definitions vary [1,2,3], which is why this philosophical question manages to get people talking past each other. [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sound https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sound [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound [3] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/sound https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/sound (note that "can be heard" != "is heard")
  - sidlls 4y ago
    Then it's not a philosophical question so much as about the meaning of "sound". And "debates" about semantics are about as uninteresting as it gets.
    - Sebb767 4y ago
      A lot of "philosophical" questions boil down to semantic debates, see the sleeping beauty problem for another one [1]. So we can get into a philosophical (or semantic?) debate about that, for a funny instance of recursion :-) But I agree with that those debates are quite uninteresting, so let's not do that. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleeping_Beauty_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleeping_Beauty_problem
    - mistermann 4y ago
      > And "debates" about semantics are about as uninteresting as it gets. A 'fact' that is relative to the frame of reference of the observer.
      - sidlls 4y ago
        Nah, there’s nothing less interesting and more irritating than bikeshedding of that sort. Nobody cares about some blowhard’s attempt to generate pointless “debate” over hypotheticals and semantics.
        mistermann 4y ago
        > Nah, there’s nothing less interesting and more irritating than bikeshedding of that sort. When you say "there’s nothing less interesting and more irritating than", are you speaking universally, or of your own personal experience? > Nobody cares about some blowhard’s attempt to generate pointless “debate” over hypotheticals and semantics. How do you people have knowledge of each others thoughts? Serious question.
  - ctoth 4y ago
    Did... Did this actually just happen for real? https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/a7n8GdKiAZRX86T5A/making-beliefs-pay-rent-in-anticipated-experiences https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/a7n8GdKiAZRX86T5A/making-bel...
    - Sebb767 4y ago
      Well, I guess there's always https://xkcd.com/1053/ https://xkcd.com/1053/
    - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
      I don't get why you're posting this in a surprised manner. Yes, these philosophical debates have been happening for many, many years (and when they do happen they often happen with famous philosophical questions such as the tree-forest-sound one). Yudkowsky wasn't making a novel philosophical discovery, he was just putting particular philosophical debates and meta-debates together into an essay.
    - astrange 4y ago
      I'm sorry you accidentally joined an internet cult, but Yud did not invent philosophy, especially not Wittgenstein.
digbybk 4y ago
It's the maximum speed of causality, not the speed at which all things are caused. The speed limit of causality. If the rest of the theory of relativity was correct but there wasn't a maximum speed, then it would be possible for an effect to precede the cause. Relativity got rid of absolute simultaneity but some things still need to happen in a certain order. I think when people say "speed of causality" the "maximum" bit is implied.
Maursault 4y ago
> And if a tree falls in a forest with no one around, it does still make a sound. I don't think you'll like the reason why. It was Bishop Berkeley[1], who gave his name to Berkeley CA, that originally posited and answered this question, and his answer was that God is always around and, thus, among other things, hears everything, so the falling tree makes a sound. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley#Contributions_to_philosophy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley#Contributions_...
- sidlls 4y ago
  That's not the reason why. The reason why is that the falling tree disturbs particles in the atmosphere while it falls (which makes a sound) and when it hits the ground (which makes another sound--both from the vibration of the ground/air interface and through the earth itself).
  - oceanplexian 4y ago
    This is precisely what is happening. The whole philosophical debate is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard. Of course things happen even if a human doesn’t observe it. Then they have to make up something about a magical religious figure hearing the tree. All I can think of is the Monty Python skit “..pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space, 'cause there's bugger all down here on Earth”
    - geoelectric 4y ago
      I always took the root of the debate to be that sound is an artifical quality we use to describe the characteristics of the air vibrations we perceive. Short of a lazier universe than we're willing to accept, it almost certainly did cause an effect, including harmonic vibrations, ones that are replicated around like echos, etc. It's just unclear if it's sound if there's nobody there to interpret it. Not saying I buy it one way or the other, just that it's the reason I never thought it was as stupid as you do. Extending this take back to thread root and then the objection, I always understood "speed of sound" to be more or less "speed of causalty filtered through a substrate", i.e. if you bump into this side, how long does it take that side to be affected by it? "Sound" is just one potential type of bump to be traveling, if we subjectively interpret the vibrations that eventually make it through to the other side that way.

Swizec 4y ago

The tree makes air move, but you need a subjective experience to turn that into sound.

Sebb767 4y ago
That depends on whether you define sound as air waves/vibration or the sensation of hearing. Definitions vary [1,2,3], which is why this philosophical question manages to get people talking past each other. [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sound https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sound [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound [3] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/sound https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/sound (note that "can be heard" != "is heard")
- sidlls 4y ago
  Then it's not a philosophical question so much as about the meaning of "sound". And "debates" about semantics are about as uninteresting as it gets.
  - Sebb767 4y ago
    A lot of "philosophical" questions boil down to semantic debates, see the sleeping beauty problem for another one [1]. So we can get into a philosophical (or semantic?) debate about that, for a funny instance of recursion :-) But I agree with that those debates are quite uninteresting, so let's not do that. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleeping_Beauty_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleeping_Beauty_problem
  - mistermann 4y ago
    > And "debates" about semantics are about as uninteresting as it gets. A 'fact' that is relative to the frame of reference of the observer.
    - sidlls 4y ago
      Nah, there’s nothing less interesting and more irritating than bikeshedding of that sort. Nobody cares about some blowhard’s attempt to generate pointless “debate” over hypotheticals and semantics.
      - mistermann 4y ago
        > Nah, there’s nothing less interesting and more irritating than bikeshedding of that sort. When you say "there’s nothing less interesting and more irritating than", are you speaking universally, or of your own personal experience? > Nobody cares about some blowhard’s attempt to generate pointless “debate” over hypotheticals and semantics. How do you people have knowledge of each others thoughts? Serious question.
- ctoth 4y ago
  Did... Did this actually just happen for real? https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/a7n8GdKiAZRX86T5A/making-beliefs-pay-rent-in-anticipated-experiences https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/a7n8GdKiAZRX86T5A/making-bel...
  - Sebb767 4y ago
    Well, I guess there's always https://xkcd.com/1053/ https://xkcd.com/1053/
  - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
    I don't get why you're posting this in a surprised manner. Yes, these philosophical debates have been happening for many, many years (and when they do happen they often happen with famous philosophical questions such as the tree-forest-sound one). Yudkowsky wasn't making a novel philosophical discovery, he was just putting particular philosophical debates and meta-debates together into an essay.
  - astrange 4y ago
    I'm sorry you accidentally joined an internet cult, but Yud did not invent philosophy, especially not Wittgenstein.

digbybk 4y ago

It's the maximum speed of causality, not the speed at which all things are caused. The speed limit of causality. If the rest of the theory of relativity was correct but there wasn't a maximum speed, then it would be possible for an effect to precede the cause. Relativity got rid of absolute simultaneity but some things still need to happen in a certain order. I think when people say "speed of causality" the "maximum" bit is implied.

Maursault 4y ago

> And if a tree falls in a forest with no one around, it does still make a sound. I don't think you'll like the reason why. It was Bishop Berkeley[1], who gave his name to Berkeley CA, that originally posited and answered this question, and his answer was that God is always around and, thus, among other things, hears everything, so the falling tree makes a sound. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley#Contributions_to_philosophy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley#Contributions_...

sidlls 4y ago
That's not the reason why. The reason why is that the falling tree disturbs particles in the atmosphere while it falls (which makes a sound) and when it hits the ground (which makes another sound--both from the vibration of the ground/air interface and through the earth itself).
- oceanplexian 4y ago
  This is precisely what is happening. The whole philosophical debate is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard. Of course things happen even if a human doesn’t observe it. Then they have to make up something about a magical religious figure hearing the tree. All I can think of is the Monty Python skit “..pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space, 'cause there's bugger all down here on Earth”
  - geoelectric 4y ago
    I always took the root of the debate to be that sound is an artifical quality we use to describe the characteristics of the air vibrations we perceive. Short of a lazier universe than we're willing to accept, it almost certainly did cause an effect, including harmonic vibrations, ones that are replicated around like echos, etc. It's just unclear if it's sound if there's nobody there to interpret it. Not saying I buy it one way or the other, just that it's the reason I never thought it was as stupid as you do. Extending this take back to thread root and then the objection, I always understood "speed of sound" to be more or less "speed of causalty filtered through a substrate", i.e. if you bump into this side, how long does it take that side to be affected by it? "Sound" is just one potential type of bump to be traveling, if we subjectively interpret the vibrations that eventually make it through to the other side that way.