He's my cofounder and I don't understand what he is talking about either. As for what I am saying, the basic point is that only two interesting things have happened. One is The Big Bang, and the other is that we know it. All else is imaginary. The idea that "we've only observed a thin slice of existence" is falling prey to the metaphor to which I am objecting. There is no "existence" to slice up.
Sure, that's (arguably) true within our observation. But I don't think you can claim to know what's going on outside the observable universe -- or even in the galaxy next door. Your statement is also not self-consistent because of this... we don't know what all the products resulting from the Big Bang are. Sure, we do know that our consciousness is a part of that. But even if you were to union together the observations and insights of every human consciousness that's ever existed, it's still only observed one thin slice of the products of the Big Bang (well, existence really). Don't fall prey to an anthropocentric view of the universe! And if we are going to rank the "interestingness" of events, I'd put the happy accident that started this evolutionary process that stumbled upon a fitness gradient giving human consciousness as higher than human consciousness itself. After all, at that point it's "just" a matter of using the fitness metric to wander through the state space.
Anyway, thanks for the explanation! I'm not going to respond to this thread further since this isn't the proper forum for philosophical flamewars. :)
"He's my cofounder and I don't understand what he is talking about either"
That is so funny!
When I initially read your post two days ago, I was indignant at PG a la "throwing pearls (you) before swine (YC)".
Now I realize - and I dont know if PG would have had this insight - an entrepreneur needs to communicate ideas. I could not even read through your answers, much less understand them!!!
