|
@Plinz | |||||
|
If we cannot answer the annoying question of why there is something rather than nothing, perhaps we can at least answer why there is only something rather than everything. Perhaps existence is the default.
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Evan O'Leary
@EvanOLeary
|
17. lip 2018. |
|
Maybe the only comprehensible worlds are measurable ones, and timers emerge from measurement-constructed histories, so elementary tasks (those caused by timers) are possible if any "why" questions have answers. Why are explanations "possible"? Maybe bc only explainers survive.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Joscha Bach
@Plinz
|
17. lip 2018. |
|
I don't yet understand the Deutsch speak! How do you define task and constructor in normal computationalism?
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
Steini
@noonscoomo
|
18. lip 2018. |
|
I don’t buy the initial statement “Why is there only something...”. Due to quantum information theory there is everyting at the same time. So the question is, why can we see only something...”. Or even better: “Who the fuck is the audience?”
|
||
|
|
||
|
Joscha Bach
@Plinz
|
18. lip 2018. |
|
Perhaps I can express if for you as: Why is there something that conforms to quantum information theory at all?
|
||
|
|
||
|
Laus
@zauberlaus_
|
18. lip 2018. |
|
Current physics has an appealing answer: Symmetry
|
||
|
|
||
|
Joscha Bach
@Plinz
|
18. lip 2018. |
|
The symmetry is the result, isn’t it?
|
||
|
|
||
|
Rob Miles
@robertskmiles
|
18. lip 2018. |
|
Probably there is everything, we just can only see the bits near us
|
||
|
|
||
|
Joscha Bach
@Plinz
|
18. lip 2018. |
|
Most things are too improbable or too self contradictory to exist.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Joscha Bach
@Plinz
|
17. lip 2018. |
|
I doubt that anything can be infinite. But some things can be boundless. We should expect our universe to look infinite though, because if we'd live close to the boundary that region is probably not anisotropic enough to host us.
|
||
|
|
||