4 ms·

I think maybe the only thing separating the guesswork involved in producing things like the amplituhedron is the fact that they are able to reproduce results in

I think maybe the only thing separating the guesswork involved in producing things like the amplituhedron is the fact that they are able to reproduce results in space-time that we can understand and verify. However, if this is true that we perceive space and time through the evolution of senses that are bounded by fitness functions unrelated to the real world, then the only verification method could deceive us. Maybe other expressions that don't match our observations might not be entirely invalid, they might just represent different emergent worlds not unlike the one we perceive through our senses. Maybe they could map to these transcendental or mystical experiences, I don't know, only guessing here. In any case, it serves us well to have untainted clarity in our objectives. If we intend to create abstractions that correlate to the real world and help us create tools that somehow explain or help manipulate the perceived reality (which I believe is the only reasonable goal), then falsifiability and proof in this sense is essential, and I have to agree with you.

fishtacos 3y ago
Separating this question from the rest of the conversation: Do you think it's plausible we live in a simulated existence? If so, how? If not, why not? (very broad questions, am aware; simply wanted to get an input on your perspective).
- gchamonlive 3y ago
  It's plausible, even probable, given the arguments layed out in Nick Bolstrom essay "Are you living in a computer simulation?". I used to think the question that should preclude this one is if the universe is even able to host a simulation of itself, but given that we know it is probable we live in a perceived reality that not only is separated from what we think as objective reality, that this perceived reality is, for the sake of survival, a much simplified version of the objective reality, then it isn't impossible that a base objective reality might harbor countless simulations not unlike the one we possibly live in. This is however an interesting experiment in a way to guide moral decisions when we encounter technological leaps, like if we ever develop the capability of producing an ASI. I don't think, however, that these considerations are falsifiable, because we can't just "break out" of our possible simulation to see what is what. What might that even mean? Would we be able to tell if we broke out of our simulation? It breeds all sorts of speculations that at the end of the day adds very little to the overall discussion. What I personally think is that there is something to be perceived and explored ousite of the realm of human concern, in the silence of the absence of the endless chatter of the cognitive consciousness, that is hard to experience and hard to describe, even though it is accessible to everyone, maybe in the form of a question, like "what is really keeping you from experiencing the dharma body of the Buddha?". I know this is all really esoteric and mystic, but I am really trying very hard to maintain a certain level of philosophical scrutiny here, if only whoever reads this might give me the benefit of the doubt. All in all this is my take on the subject and I hope I don't disappoint you too deeply.
  - heavenlyblue 3y ago
    > what is really keeping you from experiencing the dharma body of the Buddha What makes you think dharma body is more real than Santa Claus?
    - gchamonlive 3y ago
      If you think quality is real then you probably saw the dharma body's reflection already. It is as real as all the ghosts we perceive with our consciousness mind knife. Gravity, light, music... are they real? Why? Because they affect the world we perceive in meaningful ways? Then why is Santa not real when it manifests itself in the holiday every year? If the idea of the spaghetti monster makes you fast every fortnight it has a real impact on you, the same way that believing earth was the center of the universe influenced the people around Galileo at the time until he proved it was a meaningless ghost.
      - fishtacos 3y ago
        Quantity is "qualitatively" measurable. As is gravity, light, music, etc. That is something we can ascribe methods of discovery toward, we can measure, we can collectively, as human beings, or even otherwise (a cat has instincts to widen and flatten itself for reduction of acceleration via increasing its circumference, and braces itself upon landing before impact, e.g.) do so. Santa Claus, or any spiritual concept or belief, is not measurable in any objective way. An idea is simply that - an idea. An abstract concept that we internalize consciously or subconsciously. Am having trouble understanding the pseudo-intellectual argument being used here. If Santa Claus is as real a trees to one, at what point does one draw a conclusion that it's an untenable argument vs. acceptance of anything/everything possible, including unicorns?
        hnfong 3y ago
        Are you saying “if we don’t know how to measure something, we declare it as unreal and pretend it doesn’t exist”? I mean, yes that’s precisely one of the main reasons why the spirit stuff is not accepted in science (can’t be effectively measured in a lab), but it’s surprising how people can just boldly declare a head in sand approach to things they don’t understand..
- swader999 3y ago
  I have a hard time thinking that its simulated, like we are stuck inside a computer in Tron. But I do believe what we interact with is not the essence, its only a small part of everything else that underlies, that we just can't sense is there.
  - polishdude20 3y ago
    Yeah it seems like what others see as a simulation , you can also see that as just the limit of what we currently know. Like, there are things we don't know. In one hundred years, we will find out more and that will now be part of our base reality. Just because there are things we don't know doesn't mean they're part of some objective outside reality. They're just not discovered yet.
    - swader999 3y ago
      I think we are finding out more every decade. It takes a long time for this to be established and accepted.

fishtacos 3y ago

Separating this question from the rest of the conversation: Do you think it's plausible we live in a simulated existence? If so, how? If not, why not? (very broad questions, am aware; simply wanted to get an input on your perspective).

gchamonlive 3y ago
It's plausible, even probable, given the arguments layed out in Nick Bolstrom essay "Are you living in a computer simulation?". I used to think the question that should preclude this one is if the universe is even able to host a simulation of itself, but given that we know it is probable we live in a perceived reality that not only is separated from what we think as objective reality, that this perceived reality is, for the sake of survival, a much simplified version of the objective reality, then it isn't impossible that a base objective reality might harbor countless simulations not unlike the one we possibly live in. This is however an interesting experiment in a way to guide moral decisions when we encounter technological leaps, like if we ever develop the capability of producing an ASI. I don't think, however, that these considerations are falsifiable, because we can't just "break out" of our possible simulation to see what is what. What might that even mean? Would we be able to tell if we broke out of our simulation? It breeds all sorts of speculations that at the end of the day adds very little to the overall discussion. What I personally think is that there is something to be perceived and explored ousite of the realm of human concern, in the silence of the absence of the endless chatter of the cognitive consciousness, that is hard to experience and hard to describe, even though it is accessible to everyone, maybe in the form of a question, like "what is really keeping you from experiencing the dharma body of the Buddha?". I know this is all really esoteric and mystic, but I am really trying very hard to maintain a certain level of philosophical scrutiny here, if only whoever reads this might give me the benefit of the doubt. All in all this is my take on the subject and I hope I don't disappoint you too deeply.
- heavenlyblue 3y ago
  > what is really keeping you from experiencing the dharma body of the Buddha What makes you think dharma body is more real than Santa Claus?
  - gchamonlive 3y ago
    If you think quality is real then you probably saw the dharma body's reflection already. It is as real as all the ghosts we perceive with our consciousness mind knife. Gravity, light, music... are they real? Why? Because they affect the world we perceive in meaningful ways? Then why is Santa not real when it manifests itself in the holiday every year? If the idea of the spaghetti monster makes you fast every fortnight it has a real impact on you, the same way that believing earth was the center of the universe influenced the people around Galileo at the time until he proved it was a meaningless ghost.
    - fishtacos 3y ago
      Quantity is "qualitatively" measurable. As is gravity, light, music, etc. That is something we can ascribe methods of discovery toward, we can measure, we can collectively, as human beings, or even otherwise (a cat has instincts to widen and flatten itself for reduction of acceleration via increasing its circumference, and braces itself upon landing before impact, e.g.) do so. Santa Claus, or any spiritual concept or belief, is not measurable in any objective way. An idea is simply that - an idea. An abstract concept that we internalize consciously or subconsciously. Am having trouble understanding the pseudo-intellectual argument being used here. If Santa Claus is as real a trees to one, at what point does one draw a conclusion that it's an untenable argument vs. acceptance of anything/everything possible, including unicorns?
      - hnfong 3y ago
        Are you saying “if we don’t know how to measure something, we declare it as unreal and pretend it doesn’t exist”? I mean, yes that’s precisely one of the main reasons why the spirit stuff is not accepted in science (can’t be effectively measured in a lab), but it’s surprising how people can just boldly declare a head in sand approach to things they don’t understand..
swader999 3y ago
I have a hard time thinking that its simulated, like we are stuck inside a computer in Tron. But I do believe what we interact with is not the essence, its only a small part of everything else that underlies, that we just can't sense is there.
- polishdude20 3y ago
  Yeah it seems like what others see as a simulation , you can also see that as just the limit of what we currently know. Like, there are things we don't know. In one hundred years, we will find out more and that will now be part of our base reality. Just because there are things we don't know doesn't mean they're part of some objective outside reality. They're just not discovered yet.
  - swader999 3y ago
    I think we are finding out more every decade. It takes a long time for this to be established and accepted.