Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What If Time Really Exists? (2008)

arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 215 posts

Re: What If Time Really Exists? (2008)

#51

Post by thinkloop »

Seems like a lot of the problem with "time" is semantic. Do things change? Yes, and if that's the definition then it certainly exists.

But people don't generally see time like that, they think of it as some medium, or 4th dimension, that can possibly be traveled through. This kind of time does not exist (as much as anything can't exist). There are only particles and their positions. Traveling back in time would require moving every particle in the universe back to the state you want to experience. But this is not "traditional" time travel, just god-like influence over particles. Traveling back in time, in how people fantasize about it, would require copies of the universe being made every plank-time, that you can visit. And even that is just another 3d space that happens to look like one you saw before.

Time is chemical and physical reactions. The minimum amount of time (sorry) a reaction can take to happen is possibly plank-time. Nothing can "happen" faster than plank time. So time is possibly granular. If reactions stopped happening, time would stop.

That's one set of views.

Re: What If Time Really Exists? (2008)

#52

Post by rtpg »

stale2002 wrote: post #10
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 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.

Kind of ironic that the non-local behavior of quantum mechanics would defeat the purpose of the speed of light hack

Re: What If Time Really Exists? (2008)

#53

Post by paulddraper »

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....

Harry: Is this real? Or has this been happening inside my head?

Dumbledore: Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?

---

(time to get the super soaker...)

Re: What If Time Really Exists? (2008)

#54

Post by baytrailcat »

Jizzle wrote: post #16
stale2002 wrote: post #10

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.

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…

Are you entirely sure about that? There has been some solid efforts to explain collapse - like Ghirardi–Rimini–Weber theory

Re: What If Time Really Exists? (2008)

#55

Post by Santosh83 »

DougN7 wrote: post #7
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....

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.

Yup. Science has become somewhat like a religion for those who like to think logically. In the end, they can no more step out of their logical thinking than the zealots can step out of their faith based thinking. Both become dogmatic and a crutch...

Re: What If Time Really Exists? (2008)

#56

Post by frozenport »

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?

The simulation argument helps us to understand conservation principles and hard limits. Most notably the speed of light.

Re: What If Time Really Exists? (2008)

#57

Post by javajosh »

RichardCA wrote: post #37
DougN7 wrote: post #7

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.

Well if you look at the question of why religion is such a prominent trait of the human species, we seem to have an innate bias in favor of the idea that the universe was created to allow for our existence. And it requires a certain amount of mental effort to resist that bias.

There probably is some utility in the belief of an Inscrutable Creator. We are curious, rational beings and we like to understand causal chains. There is intrinsic value in this understanding, and also extrinsic value, as this sort of understanding is the basis for human innovation in society. God is a pleasant enough non-terminating terminus to all causal chains, and His Inscrutability allows us to not worry too much about difficult questions. Of course, the entire Universe is a single physical process moving through spacetime, an unchanging sculpture embedded in 4 dimensions.

Each of us are carving an eternal (if minuscule) shape during our lives. All we ever do, all we ever can do, is move atoms and electrons around (intentional motion of our body against the resisting world) yet we arise from moving atoms (unintentional motion of our body, e.g. at the cellular and atomic level).

BTW our self awareness has only one possible good purpose: to do what no other life could do, could ever do, which is escape the bonds of gravity, and spread life beyond earth. If that is not possible, then our species, and all life we know of, will perish on this planet, in the long run if we're smart, in the short run if we're stupid. But space travel, even trips that are very close, are incredibly difficult and expensive. The solar system is likely out of human reach. Interstellar travel is likely out of reach even for hardy, intelligent robots.

So you have to come back, once again, to the value of the Inscrutable First Cause, which is: relax. You're gonna die someday, your sculpture will be closed off, but your carving it every day, including right now. Enjoy it! Make fun shapes!

Re: What If Time Really Exists? (2008)

#58

Post by jayajay »

ewzimm wrote: post #25
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.)

I don't think it's religious. It's more like a conjecture in mathematics, an idea meant to inspire questions. The fact that it poses more problems than it answers is the whole point! 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…

What is god, if not a tool to inspire questions?

Re: What If Time Really Exists? (2008)

#59

Post by baytrailcat »

romanhn wrote: post #29
stale2002 wrote: post #10

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.

These are pretty fascinating observations. Are there any books/articles on the concept of "reality = dirty hack"?

Search for "Digital physics", you will bump into some info.

Re: What If Time Really Exists? (2008)

#60

Post by logicallee »

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 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. There's absolutely zero evidence of any kind whatsoever, not even a whisper of an indication, that we're living in a simulated reality, and the suggestion that leading technologists state we "almost certainly" in a simulated reality is absurd.

Who is saying that?

Post reply on HN