4 ms·

Note this website appears to be based around the personal theories of a scientist rather than a presentation of the consensus of the field. Perhaps similar to

Note this website appears to be based around the personal theories of a scientist rather than a presentation of the consensus of the field. Perhaps similar to somebody more famous like Harari in that respect. The author appears to be legitimate in his scientific background but the repeated implications of the revolutionary nature of his work are somewhat crankish; this is a personal blog so possibly he just needs a good editor (he says he is published elsewhere). Just something to bear in mind as you read - not that there isn't anything to gain from it; but the boundary between well-grounded theory and speculative philosophic beliefs may not be clear - which to be fair arguably comes somewhat with the territory here.

jungturk 9d ago
[dead]
lolakutty 9d ago
>between well-grounded theory... But how is the "dials" that the author describes, which "science" use to make the theory fit the facts of observation, more grounded?
- mellosouls 9d ago
  I'm not sure what you mean or why you have science in quotation marks. I think he is trying to say that the fewer things we need to tune the better, but if so that's trivially Occam's razor and a standard part of the scientific toolkit.
  - TheOtherHobbes 8d ago
    His point is that in cosmology, that 'standard part of the scientific toolkit' isn't being used. It also sounds as if he's discovered that PhDs are rewarded for work that makes their supervisor look good, not for original thinking that rocks the boat. You don't get the right to do that unless you have tenure at an Ivy (or foreign equivalent.) The theory sounds interesting. I hope there are some testable predictions, and if there are, I hope they're tested.
    - lolakutty 8d ago
      > His point is that in cosmology, that 'standard part of the scientific toolkit' isn't being used. Yea, that is what I was trying to say in the comment above ...
ozim 8d ago
It is an unknown person for me that wrote something on the internet. Why do you need to spell it out like that?
itsalwaysgood 8d ago
I found the article fascinating because it 'resonates' with my own personal truth. I don't have the math background or a big enough brain to hold so many ideas, and equations, and relationships between all three, to come up with any kind of scientific explanation for why I believe what I believe. The author seems to have it though. Classic thinkers like Aristotle could still arrive at something that is true unto itself, without bringing in physics. Any useful discussion between two entities must begin from some common knowledge: and because you have personal experience, you have knowledge, and therefore some idea of what is true. Dirac says we should look for beauty in math: he didn't ever provide an explanation for why, just that it seems proper and something Mathematicians know only through experience. Philosophy is at the heart of truth. We should argue against the author's theories. I can't, but I also won't dismiss his ideas just because it feels bad. Using Aristotle's deductive reasoning, I also believe we exist within a black hole. By examining intelligence and time: we can arrive at a conclusion that intelligence arises from observation if order that unfolds into chaos. And anything intelligent, anything able to notice the unfolding must itself resist chaos through localized order: intelligence. We are the universe observing itself. Intelligence and imagination allows us to predict future events. I believe we all would make the exact same choices if we lived the exact same experiences in the same bodies. This makes me feel strangely connected, and keeps me more open-minded.
- idiotsecant 8d ago
  Philosophy is how you come to determine that everything is made of different proportions of air earth water fire and aether. The physics are essential or it's just navel gazing. You may as well just have a 'personal truth' (what a gross term) about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
  - itsalwaysgood 8d ago
    Not really. We use -logy to mean science or study of something. Philosophy with no other prefix is study of the Self, in a general sense, because Knowledge is a personal thing. Science and Religion is a common division among intelligent beings. Sometimes they move forward differently in our minds singularly, and collectively. You can accept truths like learning, knowledge, roles, collective intelligence, etc., and all the depth of the Science that goes with it, and still use those ideas at a high level in order to to predict future events, to do something 'useful'. Google just posted a white paper about RSI 'dreaming'. You take some super complex thing and reduce it within the scope of something bigger. Then you let an observer (self) recursively pick and choose the reduced scopes (like steps in a plan), and by observation of outcomes, pick the 'better path' for the future. It's like dreaming and reflection, considering past and future, and then choosing to learn in a direction that helps you change the future. By picking and choosing in this way: you can learn and grow into shapes that help you predict the future again and again, to persist. It's a loop within a loop, and that's neat to me (Cybernetics comes to mind). And so the author's idea tugs at me, because if we really do live in a Black Hole, what's at the end? A spikey but supremely ordered state, yet still a Singularity. What's at the beginning of the Big Bang? Also a Singularity, but extremely smooth. What's in the 'singularity' that is our moment right now: just our minds. The only thing that comes to mind is the 'you', the collective experience that defines your moment. If you loosely connect the idea of a Big Bang being the beginning, and a Black hole being the end: At one end: a single idea (low entropy, smooth ordered state: only on predictable event comes next, expansion), at another, many (high entropy, many predictable states if you consider the start, but always the same ending). Intelligence is about predicting the state of one moment to the other, in order to do something useful about the future. There's discussions and disruptions in Mathematics about: what makes a 'valid' Math proof? Do we accept only Human understanding, or Machines? Right now we've accepted Human only. The only way it matters, is if the discovery of proof is useful to someone or something. Imagine an AI proofs out this author's work: If every single AI agreed, would you accept it? Or is AI actually a waste of 'Time' and we should stop using it. Is there beauty in Logic the way Dirac looks at Math? As it is, we're waiting on some Humans to dig through Math and proof out and 'understand' in some areas, but not in others. We measure the utility of AI: how much time does it save, which means it's a very personal measure. When it comes time to do this exercise where Science and Religion meet: we don't know if we should 'trust' an AI's understanding of Math over our own. We measure its utility differently in some areas than others...and so it becomes a very personal subject and is my 'stuff' to believe. My personal truth, as gross as it is. My 'shit to believe'. To end this argument on a spiritual note that is also grounded in personal truth: consider loops once again. And this time, probably the most important agent, the outer loop that matters most: Your beginning, and your ending. Your moment, is a collection of choices you make based on your own personal observation. Whatever you believe: prepare for your own ending properly. Criticize when you feel it's proper, and help, when you see fit. Your choices.

jungturk 9d ago

[dead]

lolakutty 9d ago

>between well-grounded theory... But how is the "dials" that the author describes, which "science" use to make the theory fit the facts of observation, more grounded?

mellosouls 9d ago
I'm not sure what you mean or why you have science in quotation marks. I think he is trying to say that the fewer things we need to tune the better, but if so that's trivially Occam's razor and a standard part of the scientific toolkit.
- TheOtherHobbes 8d ago
  His point is that in cosmology, that 'standard part of the scientific toolkit' isn't being used. It also sounds as if he's discovered that PhDs are rewarded for work that makes their supervisor look good, not for original thinking that rocks the boat. You don't get the right to do that unless you have tenure at an Ivy (or foreign equivalent.) The theory sounds interesting. I hope there are some testable predictions, and if there are, I hope they're tested.
  - lolakutty 8d ago
    > His point is that in cosmology, that 'standard part of the scientific toolkit' isn't being used. Yea, that is what I was trying to say in the comment above ...

ozim 8d ago

It is an unknown person for me that wrote something on the internet. Why do you need to spell it out like that?

itsalwaysgood 8d ago

I found the article fascinating because it 'resonates' with my own personal truth. I don't have the math background or a big enough brain to hold so many ideas, and equations, and relationships between all three, to come up with any kind of scientific explanation for why I believe what I believe. The author seems to have it though. Classic thinkers like Aristotle could still arrive at something that is true unto itself, without bringing in physics. Any useful discussion between two entities must begin from some common knowledge: and because you have personal experience, you have knowledge, and therefore some idea of what is true. Dirac says we should look for beauty in math: he didn't ever provide an explanation for why, just that it seems proper and something Mathematicians know only through experience. Philosophy is at the heart of truth. We should argue against the author's theories. I can't, but I also won't dismiss his ideas just because it feels bad. Using Aristotle's deductive reasoning, I also believe we exist within a black hole. By examining intelligence and time: we can arrive at a conclusion that intelligence arises from observation if order that unfolds into chaos. And anything intelligent, anything able to notice the unfolding must itself resist chaos through localized order: intelligence. We are the universe observing itself. Intelligence and imagination allows us to predict future events. I believe we all would make the exact same choices if we lived the exact same experiences in the same bodies. This makes me feel strangely connected, and keeps me more open-minded.

idiotsecant 8d ago
Philosophy is how you come to determine that everything is made of different proportions of air earth water fire and aether. The physics are essential or it's just navel gazing. You may as well just have a 'personal truth' (what a gross term) about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
- itsalwaysgood 8d ago
  Not really. We use -logy to mean science or study of something. Philosophy with no other prefix is study of the Self, in a general sense, because Knowledge is a personal thing. Science and Religion is a common division among intelligent beings. Sometimes they move forward differently in our minds singularly, and collectively. You can accept truths like learning, knowledge, roles, collective intelligence, etc., and all the depth of the Science that goes with it, and still use those ideas at a high level in order to to predict future events, to do something 'useful'. Google just posted a white paper about RSI 'dreaming'. You take some super complex thing and reduce it within the scope of something bigger. Then you let an observer (self) recursively pick and choose the reduced scopes (like steps in a plan), and by observation of outcomes, pick the 'better path' for the future. It's like dreaming and reflection, considering past and future, and then choosing to learn in a direction that helps you change the future. By picking and choosing in this way: you can learn and grow into shapes that help you predict the future again and again, to persist. It's a loop within a loop, and that's neat to me (Cybernetics comes to mind). And so the author's idea tugs at me, because if we really do live in a Black Hole, what's at the end? A spikey but supremely ordered state, yet still a Singularity. What's at the beginning of the Big Bang? Also a Singularity, but extremely smooth. What's in the 'singularity' that is our moment right now: just our minds. The only thing that comes to mind is the 'you', the collective experience that defines your moment. If you loosely connect the idea of a Big Bang being the beginning, and a Black hole being the end: At one end: a single idea (low entropy, smooth ordered state: only on predictable event comes next, expansion), at another, many (high entropy, many predictable states if you consider the start, but always the same ending). Intelligence is about predicting the state of one moment to the other, in order to do something useful about the future. There's discussions and disruptions in Mathematics about: what makes a 'valid' Math proof? Do we accept only Human understanding, or Machines? Right now we've accepted Human only. The only way it matters, is if the discovery of proof is useful to someone or something. Imagine an AI proofs out this author's work: If every single AI agreed, would you accept it? Or is AI actually a waste of 'Time' and we should stop using it. Is there beauty in Logic the way Dirac looks at Math? As it is, we're waiting on some Humans to dig through Math and proof out and 'understand' in some areas, but not in others. We measure the utility of AI: how much time does it save, which means it's a very personal measure. When it comes time to do this exercise where Science and Religion meet: we don't know if we should 'trust' an AI's understanding of Math over our own. We measure its utility differently in some areas than others...and so it becomes a very personal subject and is my 'stuff' to believe. My personal truth, as gross as it is. My 'shit to believe'. To end this argument on a spiritual note that is also grounded in personal truth: consider loops once again. And this time, probably the most important agent, the outer loop that matters most: Your beginning, and your ending. Your moment, is a collection of choices you make based on your own personal observation. Whatever you believe: prepare for your own ending properly. Criticize when you feel it's proper, and help, when you see fit. Your choices.