Amusingly Hoffman omits the most obvious evidence for his thesis (we don't see reality as it is). 1. As it is First (and admittedly this is almost academically pedantic), we cannot experience...
Amusingly Hoffman omits the most obvious evidence for his thesis (we don't see reality as it is).
1. As it is
First (and admittedly this is almost academically pedantic), we cannot experience reality as it is because we only experience reality as it was. That is, there is necessarily a lag between what's happening now and the processing of that information. Admittedly the delay is not very long, but it can take up to a couple seconds for some channels -- long enough to empower me to burn my hand in college, as I drunkenly reached for a beer pong ball with one hand while supporting myself on an active George Foreman grill using the other.
Of course, one might object that even if we can't observe reality as it is now, maybe we can at least observe reality as it was then.
2. As we see it
But what does it mean to "observe" something? The title evokes a rather specific sense -- visual perception. But vision relies only on the electromagnetic force. The other fundamental forces can only be inferred indirectly using vision, for example gravity by watching a ball roll downhill.
In fact, of the four fundamental forces, only two can be directly sensed: gravity (on which our sense of balance relies) and electromagnetism (on which every other sense relies). We cannot directly sense the weak force, as useless as that would probably be. But we also cannot directly sense the strong force, despite the fact that the vast majority of non-dark matter exists as baryons (i.e., matter bound by the strong force).
Stated another way, we only indirectly observe the majority of the universe! Our conscious experience requires neither the strong nor weak forces, except insofar as they're necessary to keep us alive -- and maybe not even then. Our conscious experience is also compatible with a universe containing only the electromagnetic force, existing as Boltzmann brains for an instant before catastrophically discharging into the abyss.
In the past few months I picked up Hoffman's book A Case Against Reality which goes into more detail on the theory presented in this talk. It was a rather fascinating book, one in which I learned...
In the past few months I picked up Hoffman's book A Case Against Reality which goes into more detail on the theory presented in this talk. It was a rather fascinating book, one in which I learned more quantum physics than I thought I would going in. I think this talk does a much better job at synthesizing the high level information or concept behind interface theory perception and the fitness beats reality theory. Honestly, after reading his book I'm not sure there's a whole lot to hold onto, other than helping us to toss some of our preconceived notions out the window to more objectively understand the universe, if that happens to be something you'd like to do in your life. If you're curious to learn more about the science that supports this particular way of thinking or a more in depth exploration of what it means, particularly with relevance to the concept of spacetime, I’d suggest giving the book a read.
Thanks for sharing this, it's right with my fancy. I read the wikipidea page for Hoffman, which summarizes the natural extension of this talk. And that is, consciousness, not fundamental physics,...
Thanks for sharing this, it's right with my fancy.
I read the wikipidea page for Hoffman, which summarizes the natural extension of this talk. And that is, consciousness, not fundamental physics, is the foundation of reality.
I have believed this version of reality is true since I first read Robert Anton Wilson, and yet I have been unable to deploy the knowledge in any practically useful way. This may be due to hubris: that I can somehow perceive this truer reality, and until that day, I must fight the reality I do perceive. I'm still standing, but I'm pretty beat up, and it feels like catastrophe looms, and I can't really point to anything in my life as a success.
Thinking about it now, the problem may be that depolarized my priorities. The talk suggests that our filtered (metaphorized?) view of reality stems from evolutionary optimization for 'fitness.' By fighting my perceptual realities, I am ignoring the optimal success strategies that the perceptual mechanisms were designed to implement.
I wanted to say that the counter is that 'reality' demands a different kind of fitness than what most of our evolutionary progress was honed under. But that walks outside the premise-that time space perceptions are byproducts of consciousness, not reactions to some fundamental, objective (static) reality.
Again, thanks for sharing. I'm not sure whether I would prefer this reality or one more objective, or even whether I would prefer to know reality as it is. In my dotage, I frequently find myself wondering whether cypher was the wisest character in the Matrix.
Amusingly Hoffman omits the most obvious evidence for his thesis (we don't see reality as it is).
1. As it is
First (and admittedly this is almost academically pedantic), we cannot experience reality as it is because we only experience reality as it was. That is, there is necessarily a lag between what's happening now and the processing of that information. Admittedly the delay is not very long, but it can take up to a couple seconds for some channels -- long enough to empower me to burn my hand in college, as I drunkenly reached for a beer pong ball with one hand while supporting myself on an active George Foreman grill using the other.
Of course, one might object that even if we can't observe reality as it is now, maybe we can at least observe reality as it was then.
2. As we see it
But what does it mean to "observe" something? The title evokes a rather specific sense -- visual perception. But vision relies only on the electromagnetic force. The other fundamental forces can only be inferred indirectly using vision, for example gravity by watching a ball roll downhill.
In fact, of the four fundamental forces, only two can be directly sensed: gravity (on which our sense of balance relies) and electromagnetism (on which every other sense relies). We cannot directly sense the weak force, as useless as that would probably be. But we also cannot directly sense the strong force, despite the fact that the vast majority of non-dark matter exists as baryons (i.e., matter bound by the strong force).
Stated another way, we only indirectly observe the majority of the universe! Our conscious experience requires neither the strong nor weak forces, except insofar as they're necessary to keep us alive -- and maybe not even then. Our conscious experience is also compatible with a universe containing only the electromagnetic force, existing as Boltzmann brains for an instant before catastrophically discharging into the abyss.
In the past few months I picked up Hoffman's book A Case Against Reality which goes into more detail on the theory presented in this talk. It was a rather fascinating book, one in which I learned more quantum physics than I thought I would going in. I think this talk does a much better job at synthesizing the high level information or concept behind interface theory perception and the fitness beats reality theory. Honestly, after reading his book I'm not sure there's a whole lot to hold onto, other than helping us to toss some of our preconceived notions out the window to more objectively understand the universe, if that happens to be something you'd like to do in your life. If you're curious to learn more about the science that supports this particular way of thinking or a more in depth exploration of what it means, particularly with relevance to the concept of spacetime, I’d suggest giving the book a read.
Thanks for sharing this, it's right with my fancy.
I read the wikipidea page for Hoffman, which summarizes the natural extension of this talk. And that is, consciousness, not fundamental physics, is the foundation of reality.
I have believed this version of reality is true since I first read Robert Anton Wilson, and yet I have been unable to deploy the knowledge in any practically useful way. This may be due to hubris: that I can somehow perceive this truer reality, and until that day, I must fight the reality I do perceive. I'm still standing, but I'm pretty beat up, and it feels like catastrophe looms, and I can't really point to anything in my life as a success.
Thinking about it now, the problem may be that depolarized my priorities. The talk suggests that our filtered (metaphorized?) view of reality stems from evolutionary optimization for 'fitness.' By fighting my perceptual realities, I am ignoring the optimal success strategies that the perceptual mechanisms were designed to implement.
I wanted to say that the counter is that 'reality' demands a different kind of fitness than what most of our evolutionary progress was honed under. But that walks outside the premise-that time space perceptions are byproducts of consciousness, not reactions to some fundamental, objective (static) reality.
Again, thanks for sharing. I'm not sure whether I would prefer this reality or one more objective, or even whether I would prefer to know reality as it is. In my dotage, I frequently find myself wondering whether cypher was the wisest character in the Matrix.