LESSWRONG
LW

All of Jude_B's Comments + Replies

Seven Apocalypses
Jude_B10

Thanks for the reply.

Yes, I think you're right and I still don't have enough karma points.

Well, I guess I will have to owe you an upvote in the meantime...

Thanks

Reply
Seven Apocalypses
Jude_B10

Thanks for this summation.

Maybe we can divide item 7. to "our universe apocalypse" and "everything that (physically) exists apocalypse." since the two might not be equal.

Of course, there might be things that exist necessarily and thus cannot be "apocalypsed out", and it also would be strange if the principle that brought our universe to existence can only operate once.

So while it might be possible to have a Multiverse apocalypse, I think that there will always be something (physical) existing (but I don't know if this thought really can comfort us if we get wiped out...)

By the way, how do you (up)vote here?

Cheers

Reply
0scarcegreengrass
The upvote for comments is in the lower left of the comment. The upvote for posts is harder to find: It's at the bottom left of the post, above the text box for commenting. Also, there could be a rule where only accounts with positive karma (ie, not brand-new accounts) can upvote. I'm not sure. (Slow response because i am also learning site features: Didn't see the 'letter' icon under my karma score.)
The map of ideas how the Universe appeared from nothing
Jude_B10

There's a guy named Donald D. Hoffman whom I saw on YouTube; unlike you, he is sort of "consciousness monist" (if I understand him correctly), that is, he claims that the most basic part of reality is consciousness and, in fact, reality is a network of relations between these basic particles.

I guess that if you can find some sort of an identity between this basic particle and a mathematical object we get your idea (If I understand your ideas correctly).

I also sort of remember him claiming that he could deduce the rules of quantum mechanics, but I'm not 100% sure.

You might want to check his ideas out.

Cheers

Reply
0turchin
Thanks for lead. I think that I could be "conscious monist" after all, but I prefer not to use term consciousness, and use "qualia" as it is better defined.
The map of ideas how the Universe appeared from nothing
Jude_B10

I guess you ask "why" when something is unobvious or unexpected.

The first one is relative, where obvious for a smart person might not be obvious to a less-smart one. So, like you said, it is not obvious why the null hypothesis does not obtain, and anyone who says that existence is obvious is fooling himself.

The second is less relative, for example, if a monkey randomly types Hamlet then it is unexpected, but if he just typed pure gibberish, it is not. Thus, a universe which is a totally chaotic will be more expected than a universe like ours (... (read more)

Reply
0turchin
I am trying to be bayesian in such complex questions. That means that I create a field of all possible hypethesis, and based on known evidence, corespondent field of probabilities of all hypothesis. Such approach will probably never result in one truth, that is in the situation where probability field is like (1,0,0,0,0) on field of (MUH, CUH, LUH, etc). But we could gain knowledge about the topic without ever coming to one final truth. Creating more and more complex maps is an instrument to gain knowledge. I think that one approach which may work - is to create mathematical theory of qualia. If we do it, and we prove that qualia is a type of mathematical objects, we will get something like "MUH with qualia" as final theory. The first thing in such theory should be idea that qualia can't depend on anything. Everything which explains red must be red. So they are like mathematical axioms. It also explain their ability to be self-born. So it explains how universe appear from nothing, but don't explain orderness of observations. The second thing we have to do is to explain, how qualia are able to merge between themselves into experiences. We can't just say that there is sets of different qialia, as it would result into something like "qualia Bolzmann brains" dominations. And even if we could explain how they are able to merge, we have to return to normality and explain how it all results in the observable universe with its QM laws. This could be most difficult part of all construction. (One way to start here is to see that there is direct connection between qualia and anthropic principle, and more, if we know types of qualia a being has, we could reconstruct types of its observations and laws of the universe he lives. E.g. if he has 2 dimensional color qualia he probably lives in 3 dimensional universe with some form of radiation.) All I said above is just sketch of a theory which I hope to create some day, but which doesn't have high priority now.
The map of ideas how the Universe appeared from nothing
Jude_B00

I think we need to get clearer on what "why," "something" and "exists" mean.

For example, if you assume that numbers "exist", that is, you are willing to attach the descriptor "exist" to numbers, then you already have your answer: "Because numbers exist necessarily!"

Voila! End of story! Move over, folks, nothing(...) to see here.

Still, if you think that numbers are "something" and that they "exist," then it still doesn't answer why THE PHYSICAL world exists, or consciousness. ... (read more)

Reply
0turchin
I think that "why" here represents our surprise about why Null hypothesis (nothing exists at all in Parfit words) is not true. "Why" is about missing part of knowledge and about feeling that something wrong with our model of the world. Why is also connected here with "how" question, as it should provide us with "Theory in everything", which explains, how exactly primordial nothingness evolved in observable set of physical laws. I also think that "exist" and "something" is almost the same idea. "Something" can't be without "exist" and vica verse. So the most problematic in your question is what is "existence". And if we will able to find the nature of existence we also will be able to find why something exist, it is almost two sides of one question. One of the most consistent ways to define "existence" is to connect it with experience: If something exists, it is in my experience, or it could influence my experiences. But in this case we postulate some form of observer as an axiom. I think that many rationalists may not like it. In this case all we have is only some hallucinations of primordial observer. This theory may be self consistent, but it seems that it doesn't coreleate with observable set of physical laws. Another way to define "existence" is try replace it with idea of logical consequences. If A is true, than A exists. This definition help us to get rid of mystics of primordial observer, and also logically create mathematical universe. What is your opinion about correct definition of "existence"?
The map of ideas how the Universe appeared from nothing
Jude_B00

So when you ask, "Why did Sherlock Holmes tell Watson that...?"

You assume that Holmes exists?

Also, when you ask why some complicated theorem in number theory is true, you are basically asking for a proof from first principles (say Peano Arithmetic), you don't need to assume that numbers exist (which would make you a Platonist).

Reply