Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    412 points conanxin | 13 comments | | HN request time: 0.262s | source | bottom
    1. hgyjnbdet ◴[] No.41084966[source]
    Me: seems like my sort of thing.

    Me: navigate to linked website, see wall of text.

    Me: clicks reading mode

    Me: *193 - 245 minutes*

    Me: bookmark to read later; probably not

    replies(4): >>41085005 #>>41085026 #>>41085032 #>>41085449 #
    2. yetihehe ◴[] No.41085005[source]
    It's very engaging, please try reading it.
    3. sshine ◴[] No.41085026[source]
    It’s a short novel.

    Putting it in a browser window gives it bad odds. You can also listen to it:

    https://youtu.be/KpaUg6WwdzU

    Begins at 01:30, 25 minutes.

    replies(1): >>41085424 #
    4. enugu ◴[] No.41085032[source]
    You can skip ahead to his playful thesis > the universe emerging from the command line.

    In his book The Life of the Cosmos, which everyone should read, Lee Smolin gives the best description I've ever read of how our universe emerged from an uncannily precise balancing of different fundamental constants. The mass of the proton, the strength of gravity, the range of the weak nuclear force, and a few dozen other fundamental constants completely determine what sort of universe will emerge from a Big Bang. If these values had been even slightly different, the universe would have been a vast ocean of tepid gas or a hot knot of plasma or some other basically uninteresting thing--a dud, in other words. The only way to get a universe that's not a dud--that has stars, heavy elements, planets, and life--is to get the basic numbers just right. If there were some machine, somewhere, that could spit out universes with randomly chosen values for their fundamental constants, then for every universe like ours it would produce 10^229 duds.

    Though I haven't sat down and run the numbers on it, to me this seems comparable to the probability of making a Unix computer do something useful by logging into a tty and typing in command lines when you have forgotten all of the little options and keywords. Every time your right pinky slams that ENTER key, you are making another try. In some cases the operating system does nothing. In other cases it wipes out all of your files. In most cases it just gives you an error message. In other words, you get many duds. But sometimes, if you have it all just right, the computer grinds away for a while and then produces something like emacs. It actually generates complexity, which is Smolin's criterion for interestingness.

    Not only that, but it's beginning to look as if, once you get below a certain size--way below the level of quarks, down into the realm of string theory--the universe can't be described very well by physics as it has been practiced since the days of Newton. If you look at a small enough scale, you see processes that look almost computational in nature.

    I think that the message is very clear here: somewhere outside of and beyond our universe is an operating system, coded up over incalculable spans of time by some kind of hacker-demiurge. The cosmic operating system uses a command-line interface. It runs on something like a teletype, with lots of noise and heat; punched-out bits flutter down into its hopper like drifting stars. The demiurge sits at his teletype, pounding out one command line after another, specifying the values of fundamental constants of physics:

    universe -G 6.672e-11 -e 1.602e-19 -h 6.626e-34 -protonmass 1.673e-27....

    and when he's finished typing out the command line, his right pinky hesitates above the ENTER key for an aeon or two, wondering what's going to happen; then down it comes--and the WHACK you hear is another Big Bang.

    5. boomskats ◴[] No.41085424[source]
    > 25 minutes

    That link is only part 1 (of 7). It's still around 2 and a bit hours of listening in total. https://www.youtube.com/@robertreads4323/videos

    replies(1): >>41087750 #
    6. imiric ◴[] No.41085449[source]
    I ran it through an LLM and asked it to summarize and answer questions about it. Worked great to get the gist.
    replies(2): >>41085489 #>>41085816 #
    7. johnisgood ◴[] No.41085489[source]
    I am curious, why is this comment being down-voted? I mean, I would like to hear an opinion against it (not that I care about the points).
    replies(2): >>41085567 #>>41085723 #
    8. dijksterhuis ◴[] No.41085567{3}[source]
    > Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.

    https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

    replies(1): >>41085879 #
    9. imiric ◴[] No.41085723{3}[source]
    Because HN has a hate boner against "AI". :)

    The reality is that summarizing text and answering questions about it is one of the best use cases for what we currently call "AI".

    10. bregma ◴[] No.41085816[source]
    Are you purposefully being ironic?
    11. johnisgood ◴[] No.41085879{4}[source]
    I am just simply asking for the opinion of people who disagree with OP. I do not care about the down-vote per se, more so about the opinion of people who disagree indicated by the down-votes.
    12. sshine ◴[] No.41087750{3}[source]
    Thanks for correcting me.
    replies(1): >>41089895 #
    13. boomskats ◴[] No.41089895{4}[source]
    Thanks for the link! I'm 3/7ths of the way through it.