Another interesting thought experiment: what if time (rather entropy) is the only thing that exists? While highly likely to be untrue, it's an interesting mode of thought: as matter dominated beings we naturally approach conclusions from the perspective of matter.
What If Time Really Exists? (2008)
71–80 of 215 posts
Re: What If Time Really Exists? (2008)
#72Time exists. It's the observed difference between two states. Also, i am not a physicist.
The issue with your definition can be shown when thinking about the absolute zero point (that is, 0°K): as per definition in this state, particles lack any kind of energy. Common tongue would say that it is "frozen". Now if this state lasts, let's say, indefinitely, time would be non-existent. As there is absolutely no change in the state of the particle. PS: Although one could now argue that the act of observation c…
Can that state exist?
Re: What If Time Really Exists? (2008)
#73Those who say we live in simulation, are they saying that there is a creator(s)?
Re: What If Time Really Exists? (2008)
#74Earlier 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.
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…
His post gave concrete examples of how things look a little like hacks, while yours can literally be summarized as "technologists are ignorant of biology," which is a non-sequitur.
Re: What If Time Really Exists? (2008)
#75Between 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.
Reminded me of this.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/5foq14/if_were_a...
Re: What If Time Really Exists? (2008)
#76Earlier 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.
Well, that's how god was invented.
Re: What If Time Really Exists? (2008)
#77Earlier 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.
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...
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.
Re: What If Time Really Exists? (2008)
#78Those who say we live in simulation, are they saying that there is a creator(s)?
Yes. Except that we're probably not their chosen people, just one of the experiments.
Re: What If Time Really Exists? (2008)
#79Time exists. It's the observed difference between two states. Also, i am not a physicist.
Exactly; it's the measurement of change. As long as things are changing, time exists. (The fact that this discussion is taking place proves it's existence!)
> As long as things are changing, time exists.
Except at the speed of light.
Re: What If Time Really Exists? (2008)
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The word religion means to "bind back" or "yolk", 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 Engl…
> 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…
> E.g. the William James quote: "[Religion is] the feelings, acts, and experiences of individual men in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatever they may consider the divine."
I would say his quote refers to spirituality rather than religion.