What If Time Really Exists? (2008) • Hacker News Board

Re: What If Time Really Exists? (2008)

#151

Post by ianai » Sat, Jan 07, 2017, 3:59 PM UTC

guscost wrote: post #141

ianai wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a human institution, science won't ever be perfect. The fundamental notions of science (reduction, documentation, reproducibility, etc) are drastically different from the fundamental notions of religion.

I think the word "science" is too general for this discussion. You're talking about the scientific method, which is a rigorous process for building consistent models of our shared experience. Godel's theorem suggests that we might never be able to complete any of these models, but the method has still lead to amazing new ways of understanding the universe. If we're talking about the hand-wavey mysticism of Michio Kak…

In that reduced way science becomes a study of theory within theory, derived logical connections. Once you assume a logical framework you're out of the hypothesis/test routine completely. I don't think that's a fair thing to do in comparison. Where things start out matters.

Re: What If Time Really Exists? (2008)

#152

Post by naasking » Sat, Jan 07, 2017, 4:00 PM UTC

byebyetech wrote: post #28

monktastic1 wrote: post #2

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 whole idea that Universe is a simulation vs real is absurd to me. What if the Universe is a simulation running in a computer no one actually built but just fluctuated into existence. Does that make it more real or still a simulation?

That's not the kind of simulation being discussed. "Simulation" means an intentionally constructed simulation of the universe. Random fluctuations don't count:

http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

Re: What If Time Really Exists? (2008)

#153

Post by guscost » Sat, Jan 07, 2017, 4:02 PM UTC

ianai wrote: post #151

guscost wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the word "science" is too general for this discussion. You're talking about the scientific method, which is a rigorous process for building consistent models of our shared experience. Godel's theorem suggests that we might never be able to complete any of these models, but the method has still lead to amazing new ways of understanding the universe. If we're talking about the hand-wavey mysticism of Michio Kak…

In that reduced way science becomes a study of theory within theory, derived logical connections. Once you assume a logical framework you're out of the hypothesis/test routine completely. I don't think that's a fair thing to do in comparison. Where things start out matters.

I might not understand your point, but are you basically saying that not all science requires math? To be fair, I've been thinking of physics in particular here.

Re: What If Time Really Exists? (2008)

#154

Post by pluma » Sat, Jan 07, 2017, 4:02 PM UTC

kabouseng wrote: post #97

Noughmad wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is wrong, very wrong. There is a big fundamental difference between science and religion: Scientist can invent new theories and change their mind when new evidence is discovered. Religious people stick to their beliefs no matter what.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Max Planck himself said: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." [1] [1] - https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Max_Planck

Science isn't a religion but scientists can be zealots. The scientific principle is the antithesis of religion but scientists can be irrational like any other human.

The good thing about the modern era is that even when institutional biases may momentarily prevent a theory from gaining mainstream recognition at least it will be preserved as part of the body of scientific knowledge so future generations can rediscover it.

Re: What If Time Really Exists? (2008)

#155

Post by pluma » Sat, Jan 07, 2017, 4:04 PM UTC

jschwartzi wrote: post #130

sigmaml wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But, limiting debates to the observable, testable (falsifiable) and repeatable subset has helped us improve our understanding of the nature of physical reality. Wouldn't you agree?

But it's not very helpful in understanding the nature of ourselves, which is where science remains a weak tool.

It may be a weak tool, but it's the only tool that we know actually works.

Also, as science helps us advance technology it becomes a continuously stronger tool.

Re: What If Time Really Exists? (2008)

#156

Post by runeks » Sat, Jan 07, 2017, 4:04 PM UTC

tannhauser23 wrote: post #46

runeks wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue that the concept of time is what is used to explain the transition between two states, not the difference between them. Time is not required for either state to exist by itself, but because the speed of light is finite it must take a finite amount of time to change one configuration of matter (state) into another one. "Time" is just another word for "change".

The difficulty is in defining "change" and "transition" without using the concept of time. The circularity is difficult to avoid. This is the classic paper that started it all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreality_of_Time

Time is not necessary for change to occur, I would argue.

For example, how long does it take for a thought to disappear? I would argue it disappears in no time, or at least that it can do so. There isn't any transition period where only half a thought exists (what's the half of the thought "apple")?

If we're talking about physical reality/matter, however, it must take time, because of the limits of the speed of light.

Re: What If Time Really Exists? (2008)

#157

Post by naasking » Sat, Jan 07, 2017, 4:05 PM UTC

jschwartzi wrote: post #130

sigmaml wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But, limiting debates to the observable, testable (falsifiable) and repeatable subset has helped us improve our understanding of the nature of physical reality. Wouldn't you agree?

But it's not very helpful in understanding the nature of ourselves, which is where science remains a weak tool.

It's a mistake to conclude science is a weak tool just because it produces less certain results in the social sciences. "Weak" is a relative measure, so science is only a weak tool if you can actually demonstrate the existence of a much better tool.

Re: What If Time Really Exists? (2008)

#158

Post by naasking » Sat, Jan 07, 2017, 4:07 PM UTC

vidarh wrote: post #86

ebbv wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

It's not a theory in the scientific sense as it is not substantiated, that is not the point. It is a very limited hypothesis. So in the event that someone holds a firm an unwavering belief that we're in a simulation unrelated to availability of facts, then their belief would be akin to a religious belief, sure, but the intent of the simulation argument is not to claim that there is evidence we live in a simulation. S…

Bostrom's actual simulation argument for whoever wants all the details:

http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

Re: What If Time Really Exists? (2008)

#159

Post by naasking » Sat, Jan 07, 2017, 4:10 PM UTC

logicallee wrote: post #60

monktastic1 wrote: post #2

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....

>leading technologists agreeing that we're almost certainly in a simulated reality Just to elaborate, this is really easy to show. Just take two pieces of paper, and scribble all over one of them for 10-15 minutes. Then crumple them up and throw them to the ground. The blank one will fall to the ground smoothly. But the one that has a lot of image information will tax the Universe's GPU, because it isn't able to comp…

> The blank one will fall to the ground smoothly. But the one that has a lot of image information will tax the Universe's GPU, because it isn't able to compress it easily, so it'll fall slowly and in a jerky motion. it's really easy to see. OH WAIT NO IT ISN'T.

What an absurd "test". A trivial counterargument: your sense of time is also computed by the simulation, so no matter how much "real world time" might pass to compute some outcome, "logical world time" can march on at the same pace.

But this has nothing to do with the simulation argument anyway. I suggest you read it:

http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

Re: What If Time Really Exists? (2008)

#160

Post by Alex3917 » Sat, Jan 07, 2017, 4:17 PM UTC

solipsism wrote: post #70

Alex3917 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. If you look at these lists of 'modern' definitions of religion, the plurality (if not the majority) of the ones from academia seem roughly aligned with the (disputed) etymology. http://web.pdx.edu/~tothm/religion/Definitions.htm http://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Re…

The etymology wasn't disputed. What was disputed is the way you are playing with etymology in order to get it to fit your desired narrative. The word religion means to "bind back" or "yoke" [edited], i.e. to seek an understanding of the universe and our place in it. Here you are retconing. The religio or bond/obligation refers to a monastic vow. It has nothing to do with seeking an understanding of the universe or ou…

> Here you are retconing. The religio or bond/obligation refers to a monastic vow.

I didn't realize the etymology was in dispute, so my bad. But regardless of whether religare or relegare is the etymological origin of religio, wouldn't either predate the concept of a monastic bond by centuries?