Jump to content

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Rubin Farr said:

was kind of surprised that none of the comments (or the article itself) brought up Whitehead's process philosophy... I personally don't subscribe to any "objects" being fundamental (and I know how weird that sounds), so adding yet another fundamental "object" (time) seems wrong to me in a metaphysical sense, but it is a pretty cool way to measure complexity and categorize molecular life/nonlife in astrobiology... and it definitely makes sense to say that "some things are too big in time" to exist at, er, certain points in time. the "block universe" has never sat right with me and I'm fully on board with the idea of a semi-deterministic future (the past inside the present, if you will). I just don't think they explain the source of the "selections" being made in their combinatorial spaces very well... maybe I missed it? but at one point they say "the space of possibilities is so large that the Universe must select only some of that space to exist", which is kind of a deus ex machina innit


is this thread supposed to be about outer space? whoops

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

that article is 70 layers of nonsense. i've had it open in a tab all day and i keep going back to re-read bits of it and it's somehow more ridiculous every time i read a sentence. if you told me it'd been written by AI i wouldn't be surprised, the way it's just throwing bits of things together. getting big not even wrong vibes from it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.