3 ms·

Yes, if you view Time, Space, Intelligence and Consciousness as emergent, things make a lot more sense. This upsets people because it implies that the most fun

Yes, if you view Time, Space, Intelligence and Consciousness as emergent, things make a lot more sense. This upsets people because it implies that the most fundamental parts of their existence are not "real", but to your point it is very helpful to approach them as if they are not "real" regardless of what is actually fundamental to reality.

jacquesm 3y ago
This makes absolutely zero sense. I also have no idea why you replied to the GP who was making interesting points and spending a lot of brain cycles to do so. Maybe it upsets people because it is - apologies - interesting sounding bullshit?
- gitfan86 3y ago
  It's certainly understandable that the concepts presented here may seem perplexing or even nonsensical. However, it's important to consider that modern physics, as we know it, is riddled with conundrums and enigmatic phenomena that continue to challenge our understanding of the universe. From the pursuit of a unified theory to grappling with the implications of quantum gravity and entanglement, it's clear that our perception of reality is not as straightforward as we might initially assume. In fact, it could be argued that this inherent complexity is precisely what makes these ideas so fascinating. Just as an entrepreneur might embrace uncertainty and forge new paths in uncharted territory, the scientists delving into these perplexing aspects of reality are pushing the boundaries of our collective knowledge. And in doing so, they may uncover new insights that will fundamentally reshape our understanding of the universe and our place within it. So while it's natural to feel skeptical or even incredulous when confronted with such seemingly "outlandish" ideas, I encourage you to remain open-minded and curious. After all, the history of scientific progress is replete with instances where established ideas were overturned by new discoveries, often spurred by those willing to entertain the seemingly impossible.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - maxbond 3y ago
    For what is worth, I agree all those things are emergent (how else would they come to be?), but also felt it was non sequitur and was put off by the assertion it was "too hot to handle." I think GP was objecting less to the substance of what you said than that it's non sequitur-ness, if I had to guess they viewed it at disrespectful because the original commenter had put a lot of effort into creating a thread on a certain topic and they perceived you were hijacking it to talk about something tangential. The connection between these topics may be clearer to you than it is to us. While I do know of some people who refuse to accept any form of fundamental relativism or uncertainty, I honestly think they're pretty rare, and it's unnecessarily confrontational to start a conversation asserting your views are "too hot to handle". It's sort of like asserting that some people are too dumb to agree with you - it's getting off on the wrong foot, and more likely to incite an argument than a discussion.
ineptech 3y ago
I'm not sure what you're talking about, but it's not very related to my point about "is", which was that describing things in "[noun] is [adjective]" terms carries the implicit assumption that the universe is made up of things have objective qualities, which is a useful model most all the time but still a model, and hence ultimately wrong.
- maxbond 3y ago
  For what it's worth, I think the connection is, once you surrender "is", you accept a world that is stranger and fuzzier than may be comfortable - a world where the question, "what is an electron?" may actually not have an answer.

jacquesm 3y ago

This makes absolutely zero sense. I also have no idea why you replied to the GP who was making interesting points and spending a lot of brain cycles to do so. Maybe it upsets people because it is - apologies - interesting sounding bullshit?

gitfan86 3y ago
It's certainly understandable that the concepts presented here may seem perplexing or even nonsensical. However, it's important to consider that modern physics, as we know it, is riddled with conundrums and enigmatic phenomena that continue to challenge our understanding of the universe. From the pursuit of a unified theory to grappling with the implications of quantum gravity and entanglement, it's clear that our perception of reality is not as straightforward as we might initially assume. In fact, it could be argued that this inherent complexity is precisely what makes these ideas so fascinating. Just as an entrepreneur might embrace uncertainty and forge new paths in uncharted territory, the scientists delving into these perplexing aspects of reality are pushing the boundaries of our collective knowledge. And in doing so, they may uncover new insights that will fundamentally reshape our understanding of the universe and our place within it. So while it's natural to feel skeptical or even incredulous when confronted with such seemingly "outlandish" ideas, I encourage you to remain open-minded and curious. After all, the history of scientific progress is replete with instances where established ideas were overturned by new discoveries, often spurred by those willing to entertain the seemingly impossible.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- maxbond 3y ago
  For what is worth, I agree all those things are emergent (how else would they come to be?), but also felt it was non sequitur and was put off by the assertion it was "too hot to handle." I think GP was objecting less to the substance of what you said than that it's non sequitur-ness, if I had to guess they viewed it at disrespectful because the original commenter had put a lot of effort into creating a thread on a certain topic and they perceived you were hijacking it to talk about something tangential. The connection between these topics may be clearer to you than it is to us. While I do know of some people who refuse to accept any form of fundamental relativism or uncertainty, I honestly think they're pretty rare, and it's unnecessarily confrontational to start a conversation asserting your views are "too hot to handle". It's sort of like asserting that some people are too dumb to agree with you - it's getting off on the wrong foot, and more likely to incite an argument than a discussion.

ineptech 3y ago

I'm not sure what you're talking about, but it's not very related to my point about "is", which was that describing things in "[noun] is [adjective]" terms carries the implicit assumption that the universe is made up of things have objective qualities, which is a useful model most all the time but still a model, and hence ultimately wrong.

maxbond 3y ago
For what it's worth, I think the connection is, once you surrender "is", you accept a world that is stranger and fuzzier than may be comfortable - a world where the question, "what is an electron?" may actually not have an answer.