Or it can also be called “God” if you are talking about this with a theologian. 
What you’re describing here brings to mind Whitehead’s process metaphysics. Whitehead replaces Leibniz’s substance-based monads with his own process-based “Actual Occasions of Experience” (AOEs). An AOE inherits the experiences of its predecessors in a process he calls “prehension” and integrates them in a process he calls “concrescence” before passing its own experiences on to its successor. Individual AOEs, then, arise and perish.
It also brings to mind Carlo Rovelli’s Thermal Time Hypothesis, wherein time is an emergent property of a more fundamental non-causal form of change. Time is change upon which an “arrow” is conferred by virtue of thermodynamics (entropy) – the fact that there are vastly more disordered microstates than there are ordered microstates.
1 Like
Yes, I agree that we are living in a simulation. But I disagree about all this annihilation. Perhaps the simulation just changes in a fluid way.
That the whole simulation is generated by a super reality, which is eternal, outside of our time and multidimensional. Our whole world and existence is like a science project in a laboratory.
1 Like
Any simulation can be restarted. Life cannot be restarted.
Death cannot bring life back. Life cannot restart from the beginning.
Therefore simulation doesn’t exist in real life.
Simulation can exist in the computer games.
There are two pictures for time, the traditional one and mine. In the traditional picture, time only exists at now yet it changes. I showed in another thread that this picture is contradictory since it leads to an infinite regress, so we are left with my picture.
The time in the traditional sense exists only at now and changes, whereas in the simulation scenario, it exists at now and the immediate future.
The traditional understanding of time is contradictory.
You are essentially arguing that your alternative model is the only possible alternative model to some sort of traditional model as if the tradition has arrived at a consensus model. That is not a good argument.
Let me tell you another fiction: There is a universe made of particles, each of which has a set of magical properties, like mass, which resists motion, like charge, that allows two particles to interact with each other at a large distance, etc. These particles are unconscious, but there are entities made of unconscious particles that are conscious, can have doubt, have the ability to decide freely, etc.
Perhaps change is the annihilation. They do not have to be separate events.
I already discussed the basic nature of reality here.
We have doubts when there are options. I discussed the existence of options in a deterministic world in another thread in the archive.
Through a metaphysical discussion. Physics cannot tell us much.
1 Like
We don’t need any extra simulator if the simulator is changeless.
I used the simulation since the computation is needed for running the universe.
God to me is the first cause of everything, by causation here I mean horizontal one. Here, in this thread, I am talking about vertical causation. To me, these two Entities are different.
Very interesting! Do you mind giving a link to his work?
Thank you for mentioning him. I will try to read his work.
Well, you need to argue about the reality of simulation somehow; otherwise, that is a simple hypothesis.
No, I am saying that the traditional model is contrary, so we have to discard it and look for another model that explains the nature of time. My model describes the change in time and the arrow of time (the fact that time changes forward toward the future and not backward toward the past). How can something exist at one point and change? How can something exist at one point and move forward and not backward? People have used this model for ages and never thought about its difficulties.
1 Like
I think i got it. You are computing.
Yes, I am computing. You do too. But here I am talking that computation is necessary at the fundamental level for any lawful change. Our universe is changing according to a set of laws; hence, there is a simulator in charge of the change.
That’s a better articulation. But I will still insist that your model being a better model does not make it the best possible model.
Carry on.
1 Like
So we need a simulator to run the laws.
But if there are no laws separate from how things actually behave, the simulator has nothing to do, it’s not needed, and therefore doesn’t exist.
Unless we are simulators.
We need at least a simulator to ensure that physical entities change according to the laws of nature.
We still need something to create and annihilate things. I believe you are talking about pure noise here.
Also Process-Relational Philosophy by C. Robert Mesle is highly recommended.
1 Like