3 ms·

Almost every model we build of more trivial things based on observation always turns out to be not really right. I cannot imagine why one of the universe that h

Almost every model we build of more trivial things based on observation always turns out to be not really right. I cannot imagine why one of the universe that has had multiple version updates in the last 100 years to not also be grossly mistaken. I also don't expect the full model to be simple or beautiful. We may be thinking wishfully based on massive extrapolation and cutting corners to suit our narrow view into the world.

CuriouslyC 3y ago
I think the truth is likely that we live in a very complex universe that can be approximated by these sweeping laws in general, but is very "messy" close up. Consider that while the universe roughly obeys probabilities, it also has will and intent (to a degree we can debate in another conversation).
- kaashif 3y ago
  What do you mean by will and intent? I guess if humans have will and are part of the universe, then the universe has it too, but I don't think that's what you meant.
  - CuriouslyC 3y ago
    Hopefully we can agree that at least part of the universe "chooses" outcomes, rather than them occurring randomly. You could assume that "choosing" is what random outcomes feel like but I don't think that's productive. Given that we have evidence of physical systems evolving their states by conscious choice, that begs the question "Why would large, complex physical systems have a governing force that doesn't exist in smaller physical systems?" Occam's Razor suggests that consciousness and will drive the evolution of all physical systems, and our elegant equations are merely statistical approximations following the law of large numbers given a population with a natural variance. Of course we can debate what it means for a low information system to be conscious and have will, but I think that's a more meaningful debate than trying to pinpoint the exact moment that a system becomes complex enough for the magical emergence fairy to sprinkle consciousness dust on inert matter.
qup 3y ago
It's probably spaghetti code

CuriouslyC 3y ago

I think the truth is likely that we live in a very complex universe that can be approximated by these sweeping laws in general, but is very "messy" close up. Consider that while the universe roughly obeys probabilities, it also has will and intent (to a degree we can debate in another conversation).

kaashif 3y ago
What do you mean by will and intent? I guess if humans have will and are part of the universe, then the universe has it too, but I don't think that's what you meant.
- CuriouslyC 3y ago
  Hopefully we can agree that at least part of the universe "chooses" outcomes, rather than them occurring randomly. You could assume that "choosing" is what random outcomes feel like but I don't think that's productive. Given that we have evidence of physical systems evolving their states by conscious choice, that begs the question "Why would large, complex physical systems have a governing force that doesn't exist in smaller physical systems?" Occam's Razor suggests that consciousness and will drive the evolution of all physical systems, and our elegant equations are merely statistical approximations following the law of large numbers given a population with a natural variance. Of course we can debate what it means for a low information system to be conscious and have will, but I think that's a more meaningful debate than trying to pinpoint the exact moment that a system becomes complex enough for the magical emergence fairy to sprinkle consciousness dust on inert matter.

qup 3y ago

It's probably spaghetti code