We are living in a simulation

[MoK]

@Benkei

Time is not a thing. You’re imagining it as if its a conveyor belt with things happening on it as the belt moves but time is a relation between one moment to the next. Like dominoes knocking each other over instead.

Time is a thing, it changes, and it accommodates anything subject to change. I have an argument for it as follows: Consider a change, X to Y, where X and Y represent two states of affairs*. X and Y must lie at two different points of something; otherwise, they are simultaneous, and there cannot be any change. Let’s call these points tx and ty, respectively. Moreover, Y comes after X, so ty comes after tx as well. tx, and ty are two points of something that we call time.

*X and Y could be two states of a physical system, such as a falling apple, where X and Y represent the states of the apple in two different positions.

@Benkei

there’s an unnecessary assumption there’s a limit to “existence space”. In a block universe few, the past, present and future all exist simultaneously. In such a view “now” is just a point next to other points in time. Even when rejecting such a description, the assumption that the past must be annihilated is unnecessary.

The block universe cannot be the correct model of time since change is not possible within it.

@Benkei

You’re conflating causality with computation.

I am not conflating these two. We need creation, and we need computation as well.

@Benkei

In physics the “work” you’re trying to attribute to computation is done by fields and forces. Where water flows, gravity and terrain determine its path, no computer needed.

No computation is done by the force and field. They are accepted assumptions to predict the motion.

[MoK]

@Corvus

What do you mean by a simulation?

By simulation, I mean that something is moving the things, such as the Sun, Earth, etc.

[MoK]

@Corvus

I argued in that thread that future doesn’t exist. It is in your imagination.

Also time exists in your perception not in the real world. You exist in your immediate past, not now and not in the immediate future.

I am not going to discuss this here anymore. We have discussed that to death, and I showed you that you are wrong.

[Andy]

@Scorpion

It’s a false dichotomy. Why?

Because you’re offering me a choice of ‘reality’ or ‘simulation’ as if they are the only two choices.

@Scorpion

The OP hasn’t answered the question, how do we know it’s a sim? Can you?

I was addressing your argument about the probability reaching unity in the limit. The conclusion (the math) is correct but the argument doesn’t address the validity of the premise, which is a false dichotomy.

[Esseus11]

OP seems pretty firm on their position that the block model is invalid, and that the flow of time from present to future is happening objectively, with past moments completely disappearing from existence.

Personally, I find the block model makes more sense. No chunk of time has more claim to existence except from the reference point of a consciousness that is simultaneous to it. To demonstrate, imagine a universe where consciousness never emerged anywhere. In this universe, can you tell me which time is “now”?

I would also argue that there can be change within a block model universe, we just have to think about change differently from how we experience it subjectively. If a system is in one condition at time point x and at another condition at time point x + 1 , that system has undergone change. It’s like scanning your eyes over a colour gradient bar. Orange changes to red, but this does not require orange to be annihilated.

[noAxioms]

@MoK

Here, I am talking about a version of time in which only two points of it exist, now and the immediate future.

So you make up some rules that only make sense in a limited space simulation, and then conclude the simulation. That sounds awfully circular.

I don’t think the growing block universe is a valid model of time, since all past events exist.

Naming a feature of the interpretation does not make it invalid. You need to justify the assertion of invalidity.

You have to restrict the observable events to those that exist only at the current time

All observable events are past events, so your assertions mean that nothing is observable. So this contradicts empirical evidence (of say observing the moon more than a second in the past, or observing your own hand still at least 1/10 of a second in the past.

The simulation is argued later, after we discussed the necessity of computation for creating physical entities in the immediate future.

The asserted necessity already presumes a simulation. Reality cannot have that requirement which would need to come from a deeper reality running a simulation of what wouldn’t be reality.

I don’t think that the universe is expanding at all.

OK, so a denial of science. Somehow that doesn’t surprise me, but then it’s unclear why you’re posting at all. You’re certainly not going to convince anybody of anything.

@MoK

Do you mind giving a link?

Here’s a pop link to a SA article. I don’t think you’d get anything from a peer reviewed source.

Here, two states of a system exist, namely now and the immediate future. So, it is not like that we go from one state to another.
Yea, a simulation can work like that. Our universe doesn’t work like that, as was proved.

The entity that computes is changeless

Yes, you’ve already asserted this self contradiction. Nothing changeless can do anything, let along ‘compute’.

You have to show that it is contradictory if you believe it is not acceptable.
First of all, it’s your assertion, so the burden is on you to show 1) the necessity, and 2) how a changeless thing can do anything at all.

Computation involves change. Computation is a process, an activity. Something changeless can do none of these things.

In a way I will give such an example: The entire universe (all of spacetime, which you deny) can be naively classified as ‘changeless’, and yet since it contains both space and time, motion (and yes, computation) is part of it. The object changes over time, but the universe, not being contained by time, does not.

Now I said ‘naively classified’, meaning a decent definition of ‘changeless’ is ‘remains the same over time’, which the universe does not since it isn’t ‘over time’ at all. It contains time. It is not contained by it.
You might deny this model, but it works. No engine is needed to drive it since again, it doesn’t actually change.

So an entity containing time can compute, but if it isn’t contained by time, the term ‘changeless’ is inapplicable.

[MoK]

@Esseus11

Personally, I find the block model makes more sense. No chunk of time has more claim to existence except from the reference point of a consciousness that is simultaneous to it. To demonstrate, imagine a universe where consciousness never emerged anywhere. In this universe, can you tell me which time is “now”?

The question is whether there is any motion in the block universe?

@Esseus11

I would also argue that there can be change within a block model universe, we just have to think about change differently from how we experience it subjectively. If a system is in one condition at time point x and at another condition at time point x + 1 , that system has undergone change.

No, that is not the definition of change in the temporal sense. All events exist in a block universe, so you cannot have any motion. Do you think that motion is real?

[MoK]

@noAxioms

So you make up some rules that only make sense in a limited space simulation, and then conclude the simulation. That sounds awfully circular.

No, I discussed the nature of time in another thread.

@noAxioms

Naming a feature of the interpretation does not make it invalid. You need to justify the assertion of invalidity.

I already argued why the growing block universe is invalid. Of course, you don’t understand it if you don’t read it carefully.

@noAxioms

All observable events are past events, so your assertions mean that nothing is observable. So this contradicts empirical evidence (of say observing the moon more than a second in the past, or observing your own hand still at least 1/10 of a second in the past.

No, I am saying that all past events exist in the growing block universe; therefore, they should all be observable!

@noAxioms

The asserted necessity already presumes a simulation.

Not at all. I started by nature of time, and then I concluded a computation is needed.

@noAxioms

OK, so a denial of science.

I am not denying the observation but the explanation. I already offered an explanation, which you unfortunately disregard.

@noAxioms

Here’s a pop link to a SA article. I don’t think you’d get anything from a peer reviewed source.

Thank you very much for the link. I will read it when I have time.

@noAxioms

Computation involves change. Computation is a process, an activity. Something changeless can do none of these things.

No, computation means that you get an output after giving an input. The input and output are related. None of these means that a change in the entity that does the computation is needed.

[Corvus]

@MoK

I am not going to discuss this here anymore. We have discussed that to death, and I showed you that you are wrong.

I was only pointing them out, because you have written them in the OP.

You have not shown anything at the time. In the middle of discussion, you just gave up - not trying to work for resolution. I recall your posts were about your making some emotional statement.

The point is not still resolved.

[Corvus]

@MoK

By simulation, I mean that something is moving the things, such as the Sun, Earth, etc.

Are there evidence that is the case in reality? If there is, what are they? Or is it just your imagination?

[MoK]

I am not going to discuss that with you further here. You agreed that we don’t exist in the past, and now you brought the idea back! I am afraid that I don’t have time to go through the same line of reasoning again, so please read our discussion in another thread.

[MoK]

Please read the OP. That requires an understanding of the other thread.

[Corvus]

It is not a good attitude avoiding questions just because you cannot answer them in logical manner.

They are the questions for clarifying the points which are not clear. So, it would be better if you clarify the asked points for coming to some agreed conclusion, and that is what we are aiming for here.

[Corvus]

@MoK

Please read the OP. That requires an understanding of the other thread.

OK, I will leave you to it. I don’t think there is anything I can contribute to this thread afraid. All the best.

[MoK]

Consider a very long dinosaur! Suppose that I touch the end of his tail. It takes a fraction of a second for an electrical pulse to move from his tail to his brain. Does it mean that he existed for a fraction of a second in the past?

[noAxioms]

@MoK

No, I am saying that all past events exist in the growing block universe; therefore, they should all be observable

That doesn’t follow. Only events on (not in) a past light cone can be observed, and only if not obscured. I can’t see the far side of the moon, but that doesn’t mean your funny simulation definition of time is wrong.

@MoK

Of course, you don’t understand it if you don’t read it carefully.

You only said ‘since all past events exist’, which is a feature, not any kind of demonstration of not being valid. If there’s a falsification in some other topic, can you link it? I mean, I don’t think it’s sound, but it’s still valid.

@MoK

I already offered an explanation, which you unfortunately disregard.

@MoK

I think the red shift can be explained in terms of changes in the physical parameters.

That you think that explains your denial of science, but it doesn’t explain red shift of distant things. What parameters, what change, what changes them? In what way is this alternate belief justified? If you can’t, if there isn’t a valid model, then it’s a belief, sure, and it’s a denial of science.

@MoK

Thank you very much for the link.

The article is more a history of when they did this and that, and less an explanation of what is meant. Interesting, but not sure if it’s going to answer your question. In short, the universe is not locally real. By ‘real’, they mean it’s in a particular state at a moment in time (as is a simulation). That view is represented by ‘local hidden variable’ theories, which, as the article points out over and over, gets falsified with each successive experiment more accurate than the prior one.

@MoK

No, computation means that you get an output after giving an input.

That’s not what computation is. Besides the point. Getting an output after giving an input is a change, since the output wasn’t already there. Hence no changeless thing does that. And yes, a change is needed in said computing entity since again, it didn’t have the output, and some time after the input is given, it does have the output.

[MoK]

@noAxioms

That doesn’t follow. Only events on (not in) a past light cone can be observed, and only if not obscured. I can’t see the far side of the moon, but that doesn’t mean your funny simulation definition of time is wrong.

Let me explain it to you another time. Do you exist as an entity in the past according to the growing block universe? Sure yes. So, several copies of you exist in the past and now, but not in the future. Here is the key question: Why then do you experience yourself at the present only and not the past?

@noAxioms

That you think that explains your denial of science, but it doesn’t explain red shift of distant things. What parameters, what change, what changes them? In what way is this alternate belief justified? If you can’t, if there isn’t a valid model, then it’s a belief, sure, and it’s a denial of science.

This is off-topic, but I discuss it once! What reason does science provide for the universe’s expansion? Dark energy!? Something that we don’t have any evidence for except the red shift. I just offered a simpler explanation. The physical parameters are not constant, but for one reason are subject to change over time. The light that we observe from distant galaxies was emitted a long time ago, when the physical parameters were slightly different, so the wavelength of the light was slightly different as well. Obviously, it takes a longer time for the light from a farther star to reach Earth, hence more red shift.

@noAxioms

That’s not what computation is. Besides the point. Getting an output after giving an input is a change, since the output wasn’t already there. Hence no changeless thing does that. And yes, a change is needed in said computing entity since again, it didn’t have the output, and some time after the input is given, it does have the output.

You didn’t read the next part. Did you? There are two things in any computation: 1) There is an output for an input, and 2) There is a relation between input and output.

[MoK]

@Corvus

OK, I will leave you to it. I don’t think there is anything I can contribute to this thread afraid. All the best.

You could if you wish. You could grant me that the result of the other thread is correct, and learn something new.

[Scorpion]

@Andy

Let me improve my argument.

Let n = the number of worlds and s = the number of sim worlds. Then P(sim) = \frac{s}{n}. According the simulation hypothesis the majority of the worlds are sims i.e. n - s \approx 0. Hence P(sim) \approx 1.

[Andy]

@Scorpion

According the simulation hypothesis the majority of the worlds are sims

What’s the justification for this?