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

91–100 of 215 posts

Re: What If Time Really Exists? (2008)

#91

Post by Jizzle »

baytrailcat wrote: post #54
Jizzle wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That's true, but such proposed extensions or alternate interpretations are then filling in the gaps that would lead people down the path of the simulated universe in the first place.

Re: What If Time Really Exists? (2008)

#92

Post by alansammarone »

dirkg wrote: post #87
ImTalking wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As long as things are changing, time exists. Except at the speed of light.

Which by definition is impossible to reach.

Photons reach it all the time. Therefore, time does not exist for photons.

Re: What If Time Really Exists? (2008)

#93

Post by zero-g »

dirkg wrote: post #85

Science is by definition incomplete. It only provides a means for proposing theories to test observed phenomenon, test them, and use them to extrapolate and make future predictions, which can invalidate or strengthen the theory. e.g. we don't even know if the physics we have is universal or local to our observable corner, the only evidence we have is we haven't seen any evidence to disprove it, but that's not proof.…

Can you elaborate why the string theory could be considered dogma? I guess it's somehow related to the way it ways discovered/proposed, but I don't know much about it.

Re: What If Time Really Exists? (2008)

#95

Post by Senji »

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…

Large mass -> Time dilation.

What now smarty pants.

Re: What If Time Really Exists? (2008)

#96

Post by Senji »

ChristianGeek wrote: post #17
tomelders wrote: post #8

Time 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!)

How do you know it is taking place. Maybe it's a "solid" recording of events. You could only perceive time passing.

Re: What If Time Really Exists? (2008)

#97

Post by kabouseng »

Noughmad wrote: post #77
Santosh83 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Re: What If Time Really Exists? (2008)

#98

Post by therein »

Fordrus wrote: post #44
byebyetech wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 crea…

> like a bit of malware breaking out of a sandboxes virtual machine

Since you're trying to demonstrate the impossibility of the situation, I think the analogy you're looking for is ransomware breaking out of your computer and kidnapping you.

The data/code/simulation can't suddenly escape the sandbox and materialize into whatever the "reality" is made of. For that reason, it is trivial if we are in a simulation.

Re: What If Time Really Exists? (2008)

#100

Post by semi-extrinsic »

vidarh wrote: post #90
logicallee wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

> Who is saying that? Very few are arguing that we're almost certainly in one. Philosphers like Nicholas Bostrom are arguing that either something will prevent most simulations from reaching a stage where we can or will simulate the past, or we most likely live in a simulation, but you'll note it's very possible that the answer is that we can't or won't too. The problem is that we don't have the faintest clue what th…

> Philosphers like Nicholas Bostrom are arguing that either something will prevent most simulations from reaching a stage where we can or will simulate the past, or we most likely live in a simulation

What do they mean by "simulate the past"? If we're talking actual true-to-history simulations, that is going to require an unprecedented amount of inital data on how the world was in the past. An there's no way for the system to collect all that data, seeing as it's in the past before the omnipotent simulator was created.

On the other hand, if they mean "simulations of some hypothetical past with loose connections to the actual past, Matrix-style", i.e. "they" have the freedom to generate the scenario we're in, why on earth would they choose this one with all the troubles and suffering in the world? Why not make one where everyone's a pony and we all eat rainbows and poop butterflies?

They are running into exactly the same debates that Christian philosophers have been struggling with for millenniae - why is there evil in the world created by God / our hyperintelligent great^{n}grandchildren? Which indicates to me they are much closer to religion than science.

Post reply on HN