

| yrope; erections | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 30 2014, 06:39 AM (3,459 Views) | |
| ryker | May 30 2014, 05:21 PM Post #181 |
|
General
|
HAHA I meant to post on its own thread... changed it to my resopnse to this thread. |
| my name is ryker | |
![]() |
|
| The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom | May 30 2014, 07:33 PM Post #182 |
|
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN
|
I just didn't like the phrase 'almost certain' when as far as I can tell there aren't any grounds for being so strongly assured that we live in a computer simulation.
It doesn't really seem as though you've addressed the core of the problem. If time is just matter changing, then why does matter start to change more slowly as it speeds up? Is it appropriate to just discard the possibility that a distortion of time is taking place here? The explanation you've given isn't very meaningful either. Matter changes faster or slower - or in other words, requires more or less time to change - depending on the situation it's in. But time is just matter changing, so how does this get us anywhere closer towards explaining time dilation? Edited by The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom, May 30 2014, 08:44 PM.
|
| |
![]() |
|
| ryker | May 30 2014, 08:46 PM Post #183 |
|
General
|
As I said, I think the almost certain discrepancy came from me. I made the statement and forgot to give the circumstances that make it so. For your second one the answer actually is quite easy. Time slows down as mater moves faster for a specific reason. That is the barrier of speed of light. Nothing can exceed the speed of light (that we know of). Time slows as mater speeds up to make sure this doesn't happen. For example, you are riding on a rocket traveling at .05 mph under the speed of light. time slows to ensure the speed of light barrier is not broken. If you are on that said rocket then walk to the front of the rocket going 1mph relative to the rocket you are on, you broke the speed barrier by .5 mph. time slows so that even though you are walking 1 mph relative to you, it is different to someone watching from the perspective off the rocket. |
| my name is ryker | |
![]() |
|
| ryker | May 30 2014, 08:47 PM Post #184 |
|
General
|
and time slowing the faster you go is completely different than a simulation simulating time at a rate much faster than we process BTW.... |
| my name is ryker | |
![]() |
|
| gs | May 31 2014, 01:49 AM Post #185 |
![]()
Slow down
|
in my opinion there are grounds for being "almost certain". of course it depends on how you define that but considering all the data i would take a 10 to 1 bet on this. i guess it's because i strongly believe that the development of software and the resources it gets at its disposal will snowball so insanely hard that this could be achieved with relative ease, while you doubt this. and you're misunderstanding me. i'm not saying time doesn't exist (it by definition must exist because matter does in fact change, and that is exactly the definition of time), i'm saying there's no constant "rate", this rate is perceived based on material context and (obviously) the observer's perception of it. i say again, my point with this is that a simulation ran in a second of "real time" (as perceived by the host running the simulation) could be perceived as billions of years by the humans in them. another interesting point i discussed with a friend today: if we did live in a simulation, could we ever really know for sure? |
![]() |
|
| ryker | May 31 2014, 02:14 AM Post #186 |
|
General
|
We could only know for sure if the outside source let us know. Things that make it obvious would only be obvious to the outside source as it is normal for us. |
| my name is ryker | |
![]() |
|
| The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom | May 31 2014, 06:25 AM Post #187 |
|
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN
|
I'm just trying to point out that your definition of time, and explanation of time dilation, are flawed. For the record, I'm not quite sure that I know what time is myself, but I've heard enough from scientists to be convinced that it's not just all in our heads. I think we have the least trouble in explaining what time is if we treat it as something fundamental; in my view, matter can't possibly change in the absence of time, in much the same way as a two-dimensional object on a sheet of paper can't possibly move out of the plane of the paper.
Sure, but I was having trouble integrating this into gs's understanding of time. I think his view would be that matter has to change more slowly so that it doesn't exceed the light barrier. But this doesn't explain why the light barrier is there in the first place, or why matter is prevented from going past it. It also leads to some problems; if I heat a pot of water, I'm making matter 'change' faster. Does that mean I'm dilating time? Surely not. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Jack the IV | May 31 2014, 08:00 AM Post #188 |
![]()
The Gent's Club
|
If one is not experiencing a change in space, they will move through time at the maximum speed possible. If one is not experiencing a change in time, they will move at the maximum speed through space (speed of light). A photon can travel for billions of miles but from its perspective it has never aged. From a photon's perspective, time doesn't even exist. |
|
In battle, in the forest, at the precipice in the mountains, On the dark great sea, in the midst of javelins and arrows, In sleep, in confusion, in the depths of shame, The good deeds a man has done before defend him. | |
![]() |
|
| The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom | May 31 2014, 08:55 AM Post #189 |
|
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN
|
But from the photon's frame of reference, wouldn't I be the one moving at the speed of light, and not experiencing a change in time? |
| |
![]() |
|
| gs | May 31 2014, 11:25 AM Post #190 |
![]()
Slow down
|
probably are flawed, i didn't think about semantics much i'm just trying to keep it ontopic. my point (about the simulation running in a second and us perceiving it as billions of years) goes back to the discussion we were having about being almost certain that we're in a simulation, but you keep refusing to reply to it. my friend had an interesting idea: if, in theory, something (some sort of AI) in our universe had all the data confined within this simulation (so it knows everything about this universe), it would see the things that started the simulation (examples of this could be the big bang and dark energy) as random events. after all, they were caused by something outside the simulation which it cannot observe. it could therefore never know what really caused these events, but every program/function has an output including this simulation: it would output values about the current state of this simulation so it can be monitored. in theory, our AI with all the data could know what this output is and could influence it. in that way, it could communicate with whatever is running the simulation. how it goes from there to proving that we are in fact in a simulation i don't know, because this is 1 way communication. however, if whatever is running the simulation notices that we are trying to communicate with it, it may reach out which, like you (ryker) said, is the only way we could ever really know. |
![]() |
|
| The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom | May 31 2014, 12:55 PM Post #191 |
|
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN
|
I'm not replying to it because I find nothing wrong with it. lol ^^ |
| |
![]() |
|
| Jack the IV | May 31 2014, 07:23 PM Post #192 |
![]()
The Gent's Club
|
The photon is born and dies instantaneously from it's point of view so anything else in the universe is basically non existent. If you were traveling the speed of light I'm not sure you could ever stop as time wouldn't pass so you could never hit the slow down button. |
|
In battle, in the forest, at the precipice in the mountains, On the dark great sea, in the midst of javelins and arrows, In sleep, in confusion, in the depths of shame, The good deeds a man has done before defend him. | |
![]() |
|
| ryker | May 31 2014, 09:59 PM Post #193 |
|
General
|
Whichever object is traveling at the speed of light is the one that time goes slowly for. So from someone watching the object moving the speed of light, they seem to be timeless, never moving. From the perspective of the object moving at the speed of light, they wouldnt even be able to see other things not moving close to that speed (providing the light ever reached them in the first place). Time goes faster for the slower object. |
| my name is ryker | |
![]() |
|
| ryker | May 31 2014, 10:30 PM Post #194 |
|
General
|
First off, the light barrier is there because it is what light travels. Matter is prevented from even reaching it for two reasons. first being that the amount of energy required to get matter to that speed approaches infinity. Secondy is that mater expands at that speed, almost to, you guessed it, infinity, adding to the ammount of energy to get it to that speed. Mass and speed affect the speed in which time flows relatively. I don't know what you mean when you say that heating water changes mater faster, it does not. All it does is transfer energy from one thing to another. This does not constitute change in relative time. I don't mean to be mean but that was a bad example. That and your arguments have nothing to do with a simulation. Since it is a simulation, time is measured by what ever the simulation is programed to measure time by. Think of watching a movie. you can put it on slow-motion, normal speed, and accelerated motion in many varrying degrees. Because the "mater" in the simulation is not real "mater" but information in the form of binary code, it would only be governed by whatever laws the simulation contains. If that is 1 billion years/our second, given you have the computing processing power to do so it is possible. Applying physical science limitations to a simulation with its own set of rules is like comparing a human body to a stick figure. Time may be governed different by whatever creator simulated us (assuming we are a simulation). |
| my name is ryker | |
![]() |
|
| Jack the IV | May 31 2014, 11:53 PM Post #195 |
![]()
The Gent's Club
|
I would argue heating water is dilating time if there is an increase in the speed of the water molecules. However, due to the small amount of change in speed and gravity from the earth, the amount it dilates is basically 0. |
|
In battle, in the forest, at the precipice in the mountains, On the dark great sea, in the midst of javelins and arrows, In sleep, in confusion, in the depths of shame, The good deeds a man has done before defend him. | |
![]() |
|
| The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom | Jun 1 2014, 05:50 AM Post #196 |
|
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN
|
Yeah yeah I get it, matter gets harder to accelerate as it speeds up. But my whole my point in going off on this tangent in the first place was that it's easier to attribute this to distortions in time-space, than to say that time is all in our heads and be left without an explanation for why relativistic effects are observed at high speeds.
The molecules of water move faster, so surely that means they're changing faster. |
| |
![]() |
|
| The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom | Jul 26 2014, 02:39 AM Post #197 |
|
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN
|
Let's revive this discussion. gs, why don't you believe that the universe is non-deterministic, as suggested by our best scientific models? |
| |
![]() |
|
| ryker | Jul 26 2014, 03:18 AM Post #198 |
|
General
|
I prefer to talk about the possibility that a quantum computer would give us the computing computer (and then some) to make GS and my scenario a reality! |
| my name is ryker | |
![]() |
|
| ryker | Jul 26 2014, 03:48 AM Post #199 |
|
General
|
http://computer.howstuffworks.com/quantum-computer.htm |
| my name is ryker | |
![]() |
|
| Jam | Jul 26 2014, 04:02 AM Post #200 |
![]()
Fruit Based Jam
|
If the sum of the many random events involving quantum particles equates to macroscopic events that follow concrete laws, is that deterministic? |
| Long live Carolus | |
![]() |
|
| The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom | Jul 26 2014, 04:20 AM Post #201 |
|
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN
|
No, but it does mean the concept of determinism can be usefully applied on a macroscopic level. Things like temperature and pressure don't get us very far in trying to understand the universe fundamentally, but they become very useful for referring to the collective behavior of gas particles, allowing us to investigate and predict events on a macroscopic level without having to take account of every single particle. |
| |
![]() |
|
| gs | Jul 26 2014, 11:28 AM Post #202 |
![]()
Slow down
|
i don't agree that it's suggested by our best scientific models. i guess link me to some stuff that made you believe that? it just doesn't make sense to me (and to science, in my opinion) that things could randomly happen, for reasons we discussed at length earlier. i guess, to summarize, i think that as soon as the conditions for (the state of) matter to change are met, it changes. it can't magically "wait" for a random amount of time before finally changing, at least not in my mind. |
![]() |
|
| The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom | Jul 26 2014, 04:18 PM Post #203 |
|
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN
|
The evidence boils down to the fact that there are non-deterministic interpretations for things that happen on a quantum level. Obviously the evidence at this point is inconclusive, but that doesn't rule out the fact that our observations, at least for now, have the potential to support a non-deterministic theory of the universe. The best link I could find was this: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/#QuaMec There are discussions on some physics forums where, as far as I can tell, people have said more or less the same thing, but the link I found gives the best overview. |
| |
![]() |
|
| gs | Jul 26 2014, 05:47 PM Post #204 |
![]()
Slow down
|
the thing is though i don't understand why people assume that these are actual random events because even though they may seem like it based on our current knowledge, this knowledge is incomplete and i think that the seeming randomness of certain processes only shows our lack of understanding of these processes. i just don't think the current data is enough reason to believe it's actually random instead of seemingly random, or in other words it fails to convince me to drop my conviction that things cannot happen without cause. |
![]() |
|
| The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom | Jul 26 2014, 09:57 PM Post #205 |
|
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN
|
On the other hand, I don't think our current data gives us enough reason to believe that things cannot happen without a cause. Claiming that nuclear decay is triggered by some unseen cause is pure speculation given out current knowledge; until a less flawed and less incomplete theory of the universe is produced, we have no justification for favouring one conclusion while completely rejecting the other. |
| |
![]() |
|
| ryker | Jul 27 2014, 09:45 PM Post #206 |
|
General
|
Once upon a time, fire was thought to be one of the 4 elements along with earth, water, and air. It was later found to be that fire was in reality not an element itself but an illusion in the appearance of an element when it was a state of excited electrons for whatever particular element was under the process of undergoing a chemicall change. While I agree that the data is not for or against things such as nuclear decay being or not being a random event, general data supports that our universe is largely if not exclusively a large system of cause and effect. If that is in fact the case, from the point of the big bang, everything that has ever happened and ever will was more or less destined. Seriously though, more about quantum computers..... Edited by ryker, Jul 28 2014, 03:37 AM.
|
| my name is ryker | |
![]() |
|
| ryker | Jul 28 2014, 03:38 AM Post #207 |
|
General
|
LMFAO had to edit my post. I was thinking faster than I could type and completely called a chemical change a physical change :D |
| my name is ryker | |
![]() |
|
| The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom | Jul 28 2014, 03:50 AM Post #208 |
|
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN
|
Lol ryker, can't you tell that everything is made of fire? |
| |
![]() |
|
| ryker | Jul 28 2014, 04:17 AM Post #209 |
|
General
|
yes; yes I can lol
|
| my name is ryker | |
![]() |
|
| The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom | Jul 28 2014, 01:25 PM Post #210 |
|
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN
|
Good. |
| |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General chat · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
4:41 PM Jul 13
|









lol

4:41 PM Jul 13