4 ms·

Nothing is essential to the universe, the universe does not need us. We need it exactly as it is today, and that is it. Everything else is stuff we made up to u

Nothing is essential to the universe, the universe does not need us. We need it exactly as it is today, and that is it. Everything else is stuff we made up to understand the universe weakly, or to cope with life. This is not nihilism, but meaning to life is meaningful only in the context of humans and has nothing to do with universe needing us.

josephg 1y ago
If we’re gonna talk trip philosophy, then: This is only true at the physical level. At another level, the only thing that “exists” is a mind. If all you have is a bunch of rocks floating through space with nothing to perceive it, the universe is indistinguishable from emptiness. Experience lives at the intersection of instantiated reality and thought / perception. You need both. You can also imagine travelling along the axis of an idea or an archetype through time and space. For example, the idea of lovers or warriors or something. Each instantiation of that idea in someone exists along that axis. The idea can only come into being inside a physical reality or simulation. But the idea itself is eternal. The idea of the number 1 doesn’t “need” the universe. Ideas aren’t made out of atoms.
- ostwilkens 1y ago
  It's a nice thought. If an idea could be encoded... that each persons idea of a concept, viewed in the right dimensionality, has a rough, similar outline. At least, that's my interpretation of your idea. :-) Your comment either triggered, or made me notice an ongoing shift in my worldview. Thank you!
- andsoitis 1y ago
  > But the idea itself is eternal. The idea of the number 1 doesn’t “need” the universe. Ideas are mental concepts, thoughts, or notions that exist in the mind. As far as we know, there’s no evidence of mind-independent ideas. We can only access ideas through our minds, so we have no way to verify they exist without minds.
  - josephg 1y ago
    Is an LLM "a mind"? They certainly seem to encode brain-independent ideas. > We can only access ideas through our minds, so we have no way to verify they exist without minds. Its symmetric. We can also only access the physical world through our minds too. We have no way to verify it exists without a mind. Actually we have no way to verify it exists at all in the form we perceive it - since it might just be a big simulation. In that sense, I have more direct evidence of my ideas than I do the world, since I can perceive ideas directly. (I say "my ideas" not "our ideas" because I can't tell as easily if you exist.)
    - svnt 1y ago
      This is trivially untrue. If you see a large enough, dangerous-looking enough animal in person and up close, you will respond physically without a single thought or idea. If you didn't, evolutionarily you wouldn’t exist. This is because you are parallel systems. Ideas are not primary experience.
      - josephg 1y ago
        Sorry, I’m not sure how that disproves my claims? Or which claim it disproves. Say more?
        svnt 1y ago
        > We can also only access the physical world through our minds too. We have no way to verify it exists without a mind. The physical responses that could save your life are pre-mind, and testably extant within you. > I have more direct evidence of my ideas than I do the world, since I can perceive ideas directly. Also, and perhaps to be considered separately, you have no evidence that your ideas are directly perceived, only that they are qualitatively different from what you have been educated to second-order understand as sensory input.
        josephg 1y ago
        Ah got it. > The physical responses that could save your life are pre-mind, and testably extant within you. Yes you’re right. There’s a mountain of things that we do that we don’t have conscious control over. There’s multiple ways to think about that. First is that we simply aren’t masters of every corner of our minds and bodies. But so what? Nothing I said requires us to have full control or full knowledge of ourselves. The existence of reflexes doesn’t directly counter any of my claims. Another way to think about it is by changing the definition of self / mind to only include the things in our direct perception and control. After all, the boundary of self and world is incredibly fuzzy at the best of times. Are your fingernails “you”? If I accidentally touch something hot with my hand, “I” don’t choose to flinch my hand back. I could consider that reaction part of the external world, not part of me. Interestingly that definition implies self mastery makes “you” bigger. When children stop having tantrums, they bring their emotions under control of their mind. In the process, the part that is them gets bigger to encompass their newfound control. My physical reaction to tigers also in no way disproves the simulation hypothesis. None of us can directly perceive a tiger. > you have no evidence that your ideas are directly perceived Interesting! What do you think we do have evidence of directly perceiving? Surely not a tiger. I perceive thoughts. I don’t perceive my sensory data - but I do perceive my interpretation of my sensory data. (I don’t see pixels or sound samples. I see blue chair, door, ... I hear dog barking (low pitch), I feel headache feeling, etc). I think that’s good evidence that a pattern of “chair” and “dog” exists in my mind. And I can think about the number 4. When I do that, something happens in my mind. I don’t think I’m perceiving “four” with my sensory system. But the thought has to exist somewhere, right?
- SamPatt 1y ago
  I don't believe ideas are eternal. Their instantiations are based on either some physical hardwiring (instincts) or cultivated though observations. If an idea has the appearance of being eternal, it's because either there's a process in place for that physical structure to be replicated though time, or because new minds are making essentially the same observations. I suspect even some of the most "eternal" of ideas are less so than you might think. If we were capable of communicating with a human from 100,000 years ago, in detail, how many identical ideas would we share? I think it would be very few, given that many people's ideas already differ subtlety even when they live in similar environments.
  - josephg 1y ago
    If you crushed all the atoms in the universe into dust, would the number 2 also be destroyed in the process? I don't know if the mathematical idea of 2 exists in the physical world at all. I don’t know if that’s even a well formed question. Obviously humans perceive 2-ness. And if you crushed all our minds to dust, nobody would remember 2. But would that really destroy the number? If an alien civilisation in another universe counted things, I think it might be the very same number 2 that they use to count.
    - SamPatt 1y ago
      I'm not a Platonist.
      - josephg 1y ago
        Do you think numbers were invented or discovered? Numbers show up in a lot of different cultures. If we all independently reinvented / rediscovered the same thing, that’s interesting - don’t you think?
        SamPatt 1y ago
        Does convergent evolution prove that a structure like an eyeball exists in some abstract realm, or does it mean there's a process which - given a similar environment - will produce that structure over time? It's not hard to see why the same useful inventions emerged in similar environments.
- throwaway7783 1y ago
  The only way we see ideas manifest is in a physical world, and via minds (predominantly human at that). While ideas are not made out of atoms, they exist within atoms (brains, computers, sound, books and so on). We can imagine ideas exist on their own independent of their manifestation - but its just that - an imagination.
  - josephg 1y ago
    But plenty of ideas can’t be made manifest in the physical world. Like the idea of infinity doesn’t - and can’t - exist in the physical. Yet it’s still a useful idea in mathematics. And again, the physical cannot be perceived except through a mind of some kind. To play devils advocate, we can imagine the universe existing without a mind to observe it - but it’s just that - an imagination.
    - throwaway7783 1y ago
      I do not mean manifest physically, but manifest in our minds

josephg 1y ago

If we’re gonna talk trip philosophy, then: This is only true at the physical level. At another level, the only thing that “exists” is a mind. If all you have is a bunch of rocks floating through space with nothing to perceive it, the universe is indistinguishable from emptiness. Experience lives at the intersection of instantiated reality and thought / perception. You need both. You can also imagine travelling along the axis of an idea or an archetype through time and space. For example, the idea of lovers or warriors or something. Each instantiation of that idea in someone exists along that axis. The idea can only come into being inside a physical reality or simulation. But the idea itself is eternal. The idea of the number 1 doesn’t “need” the universe. Ideas aren’t made out of atoms.

ostwilkens 1y ago
It's a nice thought. If an idea could be encoded... that each persons idea of a concept, viewed in the right dimensionality, has a rough, similar outline. At least, that's my interpretation of your idea. :-) Your comment either triggered, or made me notice an ongoing shift in my worldview. Thank you!
andsoitis 1y ago
> But the idea itself is eternal. The idea of the number 1 doesn’t “need” the universe. Ideas are mental concepts, thoughts, or notions that exist in the mind. As far as we know, there’s no evidence of mind-independent ideas. We can only access ideas through our minds, so we have no way to verify they exist without minds.
- josephg 1y ago
  Is an LLM "a mind"? They certainly seem to encode brain-independent ideas. > We can only access ideas through our minds, so we have no way to verify they exist without minds. Its symmetric. We can also only access the physical world through our minds too. We have no way to verify it exists without a mind. Actually we have no way to verify it exists at all in the form we perceive it - since it might just be a big simulation. In that sense, I have more direct evidence of my ideas than I do the world, since I can perceive ideas directly. (I say "my ideas" not "our ideas" because I can't tell as easily if you exist.)
  - svnt 1y ago
    This is trivially untrue. If you see a large enough, dangerous-looking enough animal in person and up close, you will respond physically without a single thought or idea. If you didn't, evolutionarily you wouldn’t exist. This is because you are parallel systems. Ideas are not primary experience.
    - josephg 1y ago
      Sorry, I’m not sure how that disproves my claims? Or which claim it disproves. Say more?
      - svnt 1y ago
        > We can also only access the physical world through our minds too. We have no way to verify it exists without a mind. The physical responses that could save your life are pre-mind, and testably extant within you. > I have more direct evidence of my ideas than I do the world, since I can perceive ideas directly. Also, and perhaps to be considered separately, you have no evidence that your ideas are directly perceived, only that they are qualitatively different from what you have been educated to second-order understand as sensory input.
        josephg 1y ago
        Ah got it. > The physical responses that could save your life are pre-mind, and testably extant within you. Yes you’re right. There’s a mountain of things that we do that we don’t have conscious control over. There’s multiple ways to think about that. First is that we simply aren’t masters of every corner of our minds and bodies. But so what? Nothing I said requires us to have full control or full knowledge of ourselves. The existence of reflexes doesn’t directly counter any of my claims. Another way to think about it is by changing the definition of self / mind to only include the things in our direct perception and control. After all, the boundary of self and world is incredibly fuzzy at the best of times. Are your fingernails “you”? If I accidentally touch something hot with my hand, “I” don’t choose to flinch my hand back. I could consider that reaction part of the external world, not part of me. Interestingly that definition implies self mastery makes “you” bigger. When children stop having tantrums, they bring their emotions under control of their mind. In the process, the part that is them gets bigger to encompass their newfound control. My physical reaction to tigers also in no way disproves the simulation hypothesis. None of us can directly perceive a tiger. > you have no evidence that your ideas are directly perceived Interesting! What do you think we do have evidence of directly perceiving? Surely not a tiger. I perceive thoughts. I don’t perceive my sensory data - but I do perceive my interpretation of my sensory data. (I don’t see pixels or sound samples. I see blue chair, door, ... I hear dog barking (low pitch), I feel headache feeling, etc). I think that’s good evidence that a pattern of “chair” and “dog” exists in my mind. And I can think about the number 4. When I do that, something happens in my mind. I don’t think I’m perceiving “four” with my sensory system. But the thought has to exist somewhere, right?
SamPatt 1y ago
I don't believe ideas are eternal. Their instantiations are based on either some physical hardwiring (instincts) or cultivated though observations. If an idea has the appearance of being eternal, it's because either there's a process in place for that physical structure to be replicated though time, or because new minds are making essentially the same observations. I suspect even some of the most "eternal" of ideas are less so than you might think. If we were capable of communicating with a human from 100,000 years ago, in detail, how many identical ideas would we share? I think it would be very few, given that many people's ideas already differ subtlety even when they live in similar environments.
- josephg 1y ago
  If you crushed all the atoms in the universe into dust, would the number 2 also be destroyed in the process? I don't know if the mathematical idea of 2 exists in the physical world at all. I don’t know if that’s even a well formed question. Obviously humans perceive 2-ness. And if you crushed all our minds to dust, nobody would remember 2. But would that really destroy the number? If an alien civilisation in another universe counted things, I think it might be the very same number 2 that they use to count.
  - SamPatt 1y ago
    I'm not a Platonist.
    - josephg 1y ago
      Do you think numbers were invented or discovered? Numbers show up in a lot of different cultures. If we all independently reinvented / rediscovered the same thing, that’s interesting - don’t you think?
      - SamPatt 1y ago
        Does convergent evolution prove that a structure like an eyeball exists in some abstract realm, or does it mean there's a process which - given a similar environment - will produce that structure over time? It's not hard to see why the same useful inventions emerged in similar environments.
throwaway7783 1y ago
The only way we see ideas manifest is in a physical world, and via minds (predominantly human at that). While ideas are not made out of atoms, they exist within atoms (brains, computers, sound, books and so on). We can imagine ideas exist on their own independent of their manifestation - but its just that - an imagination.
- josephg 1y ago
  But plenty of ideas can’t be made manifest in the physical world. Like the idea of infinity doesn’t - and can’t - exist in the physical. Yet it’s still a useful idea in mathematics. And again, the physical cannot be perceived except through a mind of some kind. To play devils advocate, we can imagine the universe existing without a mind to observe it - but it’s just that - an imagination.
  - throwaway7783 1y ago
    I do not mean manifest physically, but manifest in our minds