I'll leave it here: https://youtu.be/v99-S4_IvVg
Save me some Googling and time, is this a documentary with information or is it a bunch of people with doctorates in angel therapy like What the bleep do we know?
What If Time Really Exists? (2008)
41–50 of 215 posts
Re: What If Time Really Exists? (2008)
#42Between 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
Obligatory Cegłowski talk: http://idlewords.com/talks/superintelligence.htm
Re: What If Time Really Exists? (2008)
#43Time exists. It's the observed difference between two states. Also, i am not a physicist.
Or that there really is only one unchanging state, and what you perceive to be the passage of time is really just a very particular configuration of your 'memory' through which you 'remember' a different state, and that hasn't really changed at all.
Is there not just one ever present now in which all thing change?
Re: What If Time Really Exists? (2008)
#44Between 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?
See, I'm with you in the primary portion of this statement- if we're in a simulation, it doesn't make us any less 'real' - it doesn't matter whether I'm made of atoms or the stray thoughts of a passing horsefly. It is nevertheless important and interesting to know what the underlying medium in which I exist is, especially because there's no especially compelling reason why many kinds of simulated being could not create effects outside of their simulating media, like a bit of malware breaking out of a sandboxes virtual machine.
Knowing what kind of simulation we're taking part in, assuming such knowledge is possible and processable in the simulated world, that's incredibly important and interesting knowledge! :)
Re: What If Time Really Exists? (2008)
#45Between 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.
And why should nature appear elegant to us?
Re: What If Time Really Exists? (2008)
#46Time exists. It's the observed difference between two states. Also, i am not a physicist.
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
Re: What If Time Really Exists? (2008)
#47Between 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.
This is the same confident, facile declaration by may technologists who blather on about how we are on the cusp (a decade or two away) of being able to "download" the state of a person's brain and so let them live forever, in a virtual simulation.
Such people are entirely ignorant of biology. The analogy to programming, the thing they do know something about, is and irresistible analogy because they don't know enough to see the massive flaws in the analogy.
To be more concrete, by using the computerese term of art "hack" you are begging the question.
Re: What If Time Really Exists? (2008)
#48Earlier 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.
The appearance that quantum effects might be attributed to 'hacks' probably has more to do with the hackish nature of the Copenhagen interpretation. For instance, there is no stated physical explanation for the collapse of a wavefunction--it is only an extremely convenient way of explaining many experiments. A crude analogy--you can describe the flipping of coins with simple probability, but this is a non-physical ye…
What do you think of Bohm's interpretation ?
Re: What If Time Really Exists? (2008)
#49I'll leave it here: https://youtu.be/v99-S4_IvVg
Save me some Googling and time, is this a documentary with information or is it a bunch of people with doctorates in angel therapy like What the bleep do we know?
It is part of an excellent PBS documentary by Brian Greene - the Fabric of Cosmos. It discusses Newtonian View, Relativity revolution, etc. Though it doesn't go to the depth of quantum cosmology levels as in the parent post.
Re: What If Time Really Exists? (2008)
#50I take the endofunction view. plank :: u -> u Assume u is finite. Then we are either losing information or stuck in an infinite loop.
[deleted]