21–30 of 215 posts
Between modern physics suggesting time and space may be illusions, leading technologists agreeing that we're almost certainly in a simulated reality, and many ancient traditions being certain that this is all an illusion, I may have to have to go ahead and take this seriously....
haha, I had the exact opposite conclusion: good thing it's all an illusion so I carry on laughing about it all! :P
Between modern physics suggesting time and space may be illusions, leading technologists agreeing that we're almost certainly in a simulated reality, and many ancient traditions being certain that this is all an illusion, I may have to have to go ahead and take this seriously....
Time exists. It's the observed difference between two states. Also, i am not a physicist.
>Time exists. It's the observed difference between two states. For something to be said to exist, must it not be immediately observable in the present? Since state is perpetually changing, isn't "the observed difference between two states" always an observation of the past and never the present? Perhaps it is more precise to say that change exists rather than time because "the observed difference between two states"…
I don't know...if you define it as such, then yes. But does something need to be immediately observable in a frozen state in order to exist?
Between modern physics suggesting time and space may be illusions, leading technologists agreeing that we're almost certainly in a simulated reality, and many ancient traditions being certain that this is all an illusion, I may have to have to go ahead and take this seriously....
Between modern physics suggesting time and space may be illusions, leading technologists agreeing that we're almost certainly in a simulated reality, and many ancient traditions being certain that this is all an illusion, I may have to have to go ahead and take this seriously....
There is no serious evidence for the simulation theory. It is more of a religious belief than a scientific theory since it poses more problems than it answers (who is running the simulation? How did they come to exist? What is their reality like? Etc.)
We know that systems can be nested. Do we know that the systems we perceive and can test directly compose the most fundamental layer? How can we tell? If we want to have any faith in science and testing our direct experiences, we need to keep those questions in mind.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The simulation argument comes from the fact that there a quite a lot of physics effects that are both surprising, and look an awful lot like dirty hacks that a programmer might put it. Quantum physics looks a lot like lazy evaluation (State doesn't exist until "observed"). The speed of light seems like a hack to prevent an n squared problem of everything in the universe effecting everything at the same time.
I think it's hubris to suggest that just because something is surprising to us that we explain it based on our experience with our own limited technology.
Time exists. It's the observed difference between two states. Also, i am not a physicist.
"Time" is just another word for "change".
Between modern physics suggesting time and space may be illusions, leading technologists agreeing that we're almost certainly in a simulated reality, and many ancient traditions being certain that this is all an illusion, I may have to have to go ahead and take this seriously....
Between modern physics suggesting time and space may be illusions, leading technologists agreeing that we're almost certainly in a simulated reality, and many ancient traditions being certain that this is all an illusion, I may have to have to go ahead and take this seriously....
The simulation argument comes from the fact that there a quite a lot of physics effects that are both surprising, and look an awful lot like dirty hacks that a programmer might put it. Quantum physics looks a lot like lazy evaluation (State doesn't exist until "observed"). The speed of light seems like a hack to prevent an n squared problem of everything in the universe effecting everything at the same time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is ironic is the amount of blind faith required to accept some of these things that are so completely against everything we experience. It's very nearly a religion.
> It's very nearly a religion. I'd argue it is a religion. The word religion means to "bind back" or "yoke" [edited], i.e. to seek an understanding of the universe and our place in it. That's what physicists and cosmologists do. These disciplines also fulfill the needs of scientists for meaning and community and ritual, not unlike Christianity or Islam or whatever. Just because you might happen to believe something d…
No, it doesn't. Less importantly, you mean "yoke" and not "yolk", and more importantly you are confusing the definition of a the Latin word religare from which it is believed the Latin word religio may have been derived (from which, in turn, the Middle English "religion" meaning "life under monastic vows" may have been derived) with the definition of the Modern English word "religion".
The Modern English word religion doesn't mean the same thing as Latin religare, or even Latin religio, or even the original Middle English sense of religion.