Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by dc443 2349 days ago
I find the refrigerator and McDonald's bathroom stall both to be a fairly straightforward metaphysical deduction from the generation of life on this planet and its consequent blossoming of civilization. Both of those things are byproducts that support the functional needs of humans which are the ultimate result of evolutionary dynamics in carbon based life forms found on the planet.

These things which are crazy complex (which you did not pick particularly complex examples of, better examples might be quantum computers or nuclear reactors, but that's ok) are a natural result of the process that evolution kicked off (this is the accident that you refer to) that allowed people to be a thing, which, when they do their thing results in astounding advancements that necessitate complex designs to fulfill their function. I personally don't believe there needs to be a better reason to explain why we have refrigerators, mcdonald's bathroom stalls, quantum computers, and nuclear reactors other than "because we can". That is to say, once humans became capable of inventing those things, it was inevitable that they would proliferate.

1 comments

The nuclear reactor is a very good example of the bizarre contrast between human achievements and the natural world from which we evolved. Thank you :)

I see your point about the inevitability of humanity's technical achievements. But I can draw attention to my point further by suggesting the following hypothesis: it seems intuitive that something very complex cannot be derived from something very simple. Nonetheless, the smooth, dense simplicity of the big bang has, through a process that is empirically observable, unfolded into this incredibly complex microcosm on Earth. That there is a scientific explanation is not really debatable: we know that the complexity of the tree is stored in the seed as genes. The simplicity is only apparent. So, if we wish to explain the development of the universe as we have explained the development of trees, animals, etc. then we will have to be able to identify some kind of code that contains the potential for infinity complexity; a code that was housed in the smooth, dense big bang and thereafter dictated the procedural unfolding of reality from gas to stars and eventually nuclear reactors. All of this is to say that our intuitive idea that complexity cannot be derived from simplicity is actually, in a weird way, contradicted by biology, and that this "weirdness" applies not just to biological phenomena but physical ones as well so that new things seem to arise out of nowhere, when in fact they were stored in an imperceptible, condensed form that unfolded itself out of itself.