The simulation hypothesis.

[SpellowHouse]

Yes, exactly... but it is that very moment. What you're doing at that moment, because when it's passed, it's not happening, it happened. The thing with the past is that it's viewed through a personal lens, so we all have different views of past events which are dictated by our own previous experiences and emotions. How many times have you argued with a partner because their version of past events is wildly different to yours?
This means that history is only memories and only exists if written down (an interpretation of the event), or remembered by people. As soon as those things don't exist, it's gone.
Doesn't mean it didn't happen, though.

The general feeling in science is that it hasn't gone, you just can't access it. You see YOUR present. You can not see anything else, but that does not mean it doesn't exist.
It's like a speeding car moves towards and then past you. You are blind, you can only hear it, and to make matters worse you can only hear a single frequency. The noise is shifted in frequency as it comes towards you and goes away from you. At the exact instant it is beside you, you can hear it, but you can't hear it at any other location. To you, the car only exists at one position in space. You couldn't hear it coming or going, so you couldn't experience the future or the past, but the car did not just appear and disappear, you just couldn't detect it.

 

[Hagar]

Because time is different all across ...

It is not really, time as a function of the speed light travels at through space is a constant. You are comparing length of day through rotation around a larger body.

 

[ianh]

I hope it's all just like "Red Dwarf - Back to Reality" where, after you die, you wake-up realising you've just been playing a game for the past few decades.

Baggsy not Duanne Dibbley!!!!!!!!

 

[Tykey]

I'm not sure about simulation hypothesis. I do think there's much more to existence than what we think we know thanks to science. I don't follow any religion but it would not surprise me if there are "higher powers" at work, whatever that may mean.

 

[Deleted member 266365]

you should google that. your brain reaches full potential at age 43

It would appear that we are at cross purposes. The human brain does reach full development in the 20's (https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/the-teen-brain-7-things-to-know).

However, you are referring to cognitive development, or how effectively it works, which is a different thing.

 

[AndyCr15]

At the exact instant it is beside you, you can hear it, but you can't hear it at any other location. To you, the car only exists at one position in space. You couldn't hear it coming or going, so you couldn't experience the future or the past, but the car did not just appear and disappear, you just couldn't detect it.

Personally, I think it's a bad metaphor. It might be closer to say we're the car and the road is the timeline it's passing along. The car only exists in one position on the road. You can remember it as it passed the dead badger, further back up the road, although someone else thinks it was a fox... but the car doesn't exist next to the dead animal now, it's gone by, we can't go back to it, there is only the one car. (Maybe a train on tracks is a better metaphor as we don't control it's speed and direction)

 

[SpellowHouse]

Personally, I think it's a bad metaphor. It might be closer to say we're the car and the road is the timeline it's passing along. The car only exists in one position on the road. You can remember it as it passed the dead badger, further back up the road, although someone else thinks it was a fox... but the car doesn't exist next to the dead animal now, it's gone by, we can't go back to it, there is only the one car. (Maybe a train on tracks is a better metaphor as we don't control it's speed and direction)

We seem to be going after two different points. You just stated how the mind works, not that the past exists. What I was trying to show is that we only perceive the present, but the car existed in the future and past, we just couldn't perceive it.

This is a consequence of Mr E's theories. It doesn't mean it's true, but the man has a habit of being right!!!

 

[Tykey]

I sometimes wonder if this analogy is apt - that life forms like goldfish, or even bacteria, aren't aware of us even though they and us exist, are we also like that? They exist and are alive i.e. they feed, replicate, respire etc, but they have no concept of us, they are oblivious to our presence. Are we like this with relation to other "entities", I mean "higher powers" or a system like a simulation. Ok, bacteria are primitive and can't perceive and think like us, but maybe we are also too primitive to perceive something else beyond our comprehension and understanding.

 

[tonys]

I sometimes wonder if this analogy is apt - that life forms like goldfish, or even bacteria, aren't aware of us even though they and us exist, are we also like that? They exist and are alive i.e. they feed, replicate, respire etc, but they have no concept of us, they are oblivious to our presence. Are we like this with relation to other "entities", I mean "higher powers" or a system like a simulation. Ok, bacteria are primitive and can't perceive and think like us, but maybe we are also too primitive to perceive something else beyond our comprehension and understanding.

The fish would only know of our existence if they developed intelligence to be able to perceive things outside of their reality.

Is our world within a smaller or larger world concept. Are we part of alternate realities, simulations etc. We cannot know unless we can find a way to observe and get accurate data

 

[AndyCr15]

We seem to be going after two different points. You just stated how the mind works, not that the past exists. What I was trying to show is that we only perceive the present, but the car existed in the future and past

As I say, personally I think it's a bad metaphor, I was just saying what I thought was slightly better. I thought you were trying to say the past and present still exist, but in this quote you say it doesn't (you use the past tense existed), so maybe I have misunderstood your point.

 

[SpellowHouse]

I sometimes wonder if this analogy is apt - that life forms like goldfish, or even bacteria, aren't aware of us even though they and us exist, are we also like that? They exist and are alive i.e. they feed, replicate, respire etc, but they have no concept of us, they are oblivious to our presence. Are we like this with relation to other "entities", I mean "higher powers" or a system like a simulation. Ok, bacteria are primitive and can't perceive and think like us, but maybe we are also too primitive to perceive something else beyond our comprehension and understanding.

We may never understand our Universe.
In the big world (astronomy), there are puzzles we may never know the answer to. There is only so much looking through a telescope can tell us.
We are already at a point were we are not learning anything new about the micro world, despite spending billions on it.
We need a breakthrough in theory, but we may never get it. It may just require more intelligence than we have.

 

[SpellowHouse]

As I say, personally I think it's a bad metaphor, I was just saying what I thought was slightly better. I thought you were trying to say the past and present still exist, but in this quote you say it doesn't (you use the past tense existed), so maybe I have misunderstood your point.

I see your point. OR DO I? *twilight zone music*

 

[SpellowHouse]

I'm not sure about simulation hypothesis. I do think there's much more to existence than what we think we know thanks to science. I don't follow any religion but it would not surprise me if there are "higher powers" at work, whatever that may mean.

I don't either. I think that all started when graphics card processing started to mirror the real world in certain ways. It made people think that maybe the universe was just a piece of software running on an NVIDIA 113090ti.

 

[MoRT489]

Is this going to be available on x-box anytime spoon?

Fixed that for you.

Already been done. The Sims™.

Also, the time thing. Always interesting watch Red Dwarf with time references. Years, minutes, ice ages. This will mean nothing to Earth outsiders.

Maybe we are all characters in The Sims and to us this is photorealistic but to the gamer this looks incredibly blocky…

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

As always, I regret posting.

 

[moon man]

if the past doesn't exist, is now just a freeze frame not measurable, what's all this happy horse **** all about

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

Eternal Sunshine.

 

[ateNever]

Hello forum users.

The Matrix was a documentary first released in 1984 but oh no, was it? The central conceit centers on Hollywood escort Vivian Ward and wealthy businessman Edward Lewis. Vivian is hired to be Edward's escort for several business and social functions, and their relationship develops during her week-long stay with him. The film's title Pretty Woman is based on the 1964 song "Oh, Pretty Woman" by Roy Orbison. The original screenplay was titled “3,000,” and was written by then-struggling screenwriter J. F. Lawton the idea of a dystopian future in which humanity is unknowingly trapped inside the Matrix, a simulated reality that intelligent machines have created to distract humans while using their bodies as an energy source.[7] When computer programmer Thomas Anderson, under the hacker alias "Neo", uncovers the truth, he joins a rebellion against the machines along with other people who have been freed from the Matrix.

The simulation hypothesis proposes that what humans experience as the world is actually a simulated reality, such as a computer simulation in which humans themselves are constructs.[1][2] There has been much debate over this topic, ranging from philosophical discourse to practical applications in computing.

The simulation hypothesis, as formulated by Nick Bostrom,[3] is part of a long tradition of skeptical scenarios. It was presented by Bostrom as not merely a philosophical speculation, but an empirical claim with quantifiable probabilities. The hypothesis has received criticism from some physicists, such as Sabine Hossenfelder who has called it pseudoscience,[4] and cosmologist George F. R. Ellis, who stated that "[the hypothesis] is totally impracticable from a technical viewpoint", and that "late-night pub discussion is not a viable theory".[5][6] Versions of the hypothesis have also been featured in science fiction, appearing as a central plot device in many stories and films, such as The Matrix.[7] (I just posted that wiki, goddammit)

What a piece of work is man!
How noble in reason!
How infinite in faculties! in form and moving, how express and admirable!
in action how like an angel!
in apprehension, how like a god!
the beauty of the world! the paragon of animals!
And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust?

Or is it all just late night pub discussion? Empty your thoughts in the bowl.

Vivian Ward

There's a theory called "fine-tuning of the universe". All the laws of physics, constants, operate in such a way that particles can form, then stars from them, upon their destruction other elements, from which further planets, animals, humans, etc., arise. Otherwise, the slightest changes in some constants would break everything. So either there are simply an infinite number of universes with different laws of physics, or someone intentionally tuned the laws of physics specifically for us in our universe. There you have your simulations.

In any case, humans are not yet able to grasp this. Even about black holes, I read yesterday that they've already come up with the idea that they're not black holes, but rather "stars within stars with dark matter and anti-gravity." Supposedly, this better describes their concept and eliminates the singularity, where the laws of physics break down

 

[tangey]

I often wonder if most of physics is just made up stuff that there is a consensus that those in the click nod sagely and agree on as being the rules of physics.

For example, they spent gawd knows how much money designing experiments to detect what they assumed was a really important sub-atomic particle, the boson. Is it really surprising that an instrument whose sole function is to register the presence of an event actually registers the event ? Isn't it the ultimate confirmation bias, that an instrument designed around an imaginary particle confirms the existence of the particle. For all they know something completely different could be happening that is registering the response that the instrument was designed to register. But it "pings" or whatever and therefore they have found what until then was an imaginary entity called the boson.

And then you have whole dark matter thing. For years, everyone was happy with the existing made up stuff, until someone decided that the existing made up stuff was a complete load of crap as for things to be consistent that there must be x10 the amount of matter than the amount that absolutely everyone previously was happy with. So lets just invent a completely new and, currently, entirely imaginary entity, lets call it dark matter, and now what we'll do is spend years making up and instrument that will be used to confirm the existence of our imaginary entity, because otherwise the entire theory of the universe will fall to bits.

I guess what I am asking is, in the history of needing to detect something to allow the currently made up stuff to be confirmed to be real, have they ever failed to design an instrument/experiment that detected the made up stuff ?

 

[arknor]

I sometimes wonder if this analogy is apt - that life forms like goldfish, or even bacteria, aren't aware of us even though they and us exist, are we also like that? They exist and are alive i.e. they feed, replicate, respire etc, but they have no concept of us, they are oblivious to our presence. Are we like this with relation to other "entities", I mean "higher powers" or a system like a simulation. Ok, bacteria are primitive and can't perceive and think like us, but maybe we are also too primitive to perceive something else beyond our comprehension and understanding.

Bacteria are so simple an organism to be aware of anything.
it's more like a chemical reaction that a living thing.

You could argue to a Goldfish, whats outside the bowl is like seeing into another dimension, to the goldfish it probably appears flat like a living 2d world.

We haven't found the edge of our bowl yet, it's entirely possible when we do we could observe what seems like another reality with more or less dimensions than we have, we might be able to observe but have no way of interacting like the goldfish