Simulations/matrix and the speed of light

[excreationist]

How would you know that it is not started in the future?

Well in the Matrix the simulation exists in a world that is 200 years in the future.... or perhaps you mean it simulates the future then goes back in the past?

Think about what it is like to live in a simulation. For you, time passes normally. But the computer simulating you could run faster or slower than the "simulated" time. And the execution could be even suspended at times, and then resumed at a later time. You might even reverse time in a simulation. For you, it would not feel any different because you are inside the simulation. So there is no way of telling whether you are in a simulation that is running forwards from last Tuesday, or backwards from next Tuesday. And actually you can't even tell a difference between a simulation that is not run at all, as long as the laws governing the simulation are deterministic.

I agree... BTW because of how time works in a simulation, it is possible for a simulation of hell to be equivalent to thousands or maybe millions of years.... though it isn't quite compatible with the church tradition because you can't fully simulate an eternity.

 

[excreationist]

Everything happens in the present. Simulations run in present time.

That's a weird way of thinking the universe. It not only violates relativity, but basic human experience.

Yeah time could pass at different speeds in a simulation based on gravity and velocity... this isn't really possible in a real time simulation.

 

[DBT]

Everything happens in the present. Simulations run in present time.

That's a weird way of thinking the universe. It not only violates relativity, but basic human experience.

It is relativity. Your time rate is not the same as an astronaut heading for the stars, but both experience their own present moment in time. Neither experiences the past or the future moment in time, only their own present moment in time.

That each experience different flow of time, time being relative, doesn't change what is being experienced by each observer in their present moment.

Looking at a star you see light that radiated from the star in the past, yet you see it in your present moment in time, not your past, not your future.

If someone is running a simulation, they are running it in their present, not their future, not their past.

You can't run a simulation in the past. You can run simulations of the past. You can run simulations of any period in history, but you are running it in now.

 

[DBT]

Everything happens in the present. Simulations run in present time.

That's a weird way of thinking the universe. It not only violates relativity, but basic human experience.

Yeah time could pass at different speeds in a simulation based on gravity and velocity... this isn't really possible in a real time simulation.

Everything you do is in real time. Try to do something, anything, in the past or in the future. You can do something in the future when tomorrow becomes today, becomes now.

You can run simulations of the past or a projected future, but you are running them now, in your present moment.

Time being relative, each actor is operating within their own timeframe, not somebody else's.

 

[excreationist]

Yeah time could pass at different speeds in a simulation based on gravity and velocity... this isn't really possible in a real time simulation.

Everything you do is in real time.

By a real-time simulation I mean like a normal multiplayer game.... in those games you can't have proper bullet time... if time slowed down for some players so that they could dodge bullets, it would affect how the other players perceive time.

Time being relative, each actor is operating within their own timeframe, not somebody else's.

That would involve their brains running at different clock speeds... or however the brain senses the speed of time (apparently some drugs can do that)

 

[DBT]

That would involve their brains running at different clock speeds... or however the brain senses the speed of time (apparently some drugs can do that)

The brain activity of a star ship astronaut runs at a different rate because time is relative. He does not feel that his perception of time and activity is slower than it was on Earth. If he is running a simulation, his simulation runs at the same rate as his brain activity and the rest of the ship. If his simulation involves the classical world, ancient Greece, for example, the 'ancient Greek' inhabitants of his simulation feel like they live in Greece at that time in History but their actual existence is star ship/astronaut time.

If you were running a simulation, it would be in your timeframe regardless of the period setting of your simulation.....the Jurassic or whatever.

If our World is a simulation, it may be being generated in the year 3020. We have no way of knowing.

 

[excreationist]

@DBT:
This is what I mean by a "real-time simulation" - in the "White Christmas" episode of Black Mirror, the "cookie" runs at a normal rate.... then the guy speeds up her time so that each second seems like about 24 hours to her. (only the first part of that section is shown)

 

[DBT]

@DBT:
This is what I mean by a "real-time simulation" - in the "White Christmas" episode of Black Mirror, the "cookie" runs at a normal rate.... then the guy speeds up her time so that each second seems like about 24 hours to her. (only the first part of that section is shown)

Maybe you can summarize. I try not to watch videos.

Things do run at different rates, Time runs at different rates, GPS has to be adjusted for satellite time rate, etc, but the point is that if you are running a simulation set in ancient Greece, for example, and the inhabitants feel they are people of their era, strolling in the Agora, building the Parthenon, they are not really living in the third century BCE despite their experience, their experience is an illusion, a simulation.

Their simulation is being run here and now.

You, the programmer, can watch what your 'ancient Greeks' are doing here and now.

If our world is a simulation we may perceive ourselves to be in 2020, yet our simulation may actually be running in the year 3020.

 

[excreationist]

Maybe you can summarize. I try not to watch videos.

A woman's consciousness has been put in the egg in the picture. She sees herself in a virtual room inside the egg. She misbehaves and the man makes every second last for 24 hours... 20 seconds later she's been alone in her virtual room for 3 weeks and is starting to go crazy. Before that happened the rate that time passes was the same as the man so the simulation was in "real time". (this is shown in the first 16 seconds of the video)

Things do run at different rates, Time runs at different rates, GPS has to be adjusted for satellite time rate, etc,

I suspect though that time runs slightly slower for satellites due to a simulation treating them differently.... (in order to be consistent with my belief about this being a simulation)

....You, the programmer, can watch what your 'ancient Greeks' are doing here and now.

Though it could be like that "Black Mirror" episode and every second could be 24 hours... (there is another episode where 1000 simulations are run within a short amount of time to see if a couple would be compatible). There is also an episode of Rick and Morty where they live an entire life span of "Roy" within a couple of minutes.... then wake up and remember their real identity.

If our world is a simulation we may perceive ourselves to be in 2020, yet our simulation may actually be running in the year 3020.

Yes of course...

 

[steve_bank]

During our last simulation operation meeting it was decided the excreationist function will be deletedd. It has become too erratic.

 

[excreationist]

During our last simulation operation meeting it was decided the excreationist function will be deletedd. It has become too erratic.

Usually they just put me in the mental ward... but my current belief is that there is no hard proof that the supernatural (intelligent force) exists (though I suspect it does). And there is no hard proof I am "special" and I'm worried about having delusions again so it causes me to act conservatively.

 

[fromderinside]

During our last simulation operation meeting it was decided the excreationist function will be deletedd. It has become too erratic.

Usually they just put me in the mental ward... but my current belief is that there is no hard proof that the supernatural (intelligent force) exists (though I suspect it does). And there is no hard proof I am "special" and I'm worried about having delusions again so it causes me to act conservatively.

And away we go. How about we just talk about what those two terms mean?

Supernatural: https://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=supernatural (155 documents found)

intelligent force: https://plato.stanford.edu/search/search?query=intelligent+force (1260 documents found)

I tell you what. Why don't you, excreationist, scan these documents and report back which are appropriate for the current discussion.

Think of me as a card catalog

 

[excreationist]

During our last simulation operation meeting it was decided the excreationist function will be deletedd. It has become too erratic.

Usually they just put me in the mental ward... but my current belief is that there is no hard proof that the supernatural (intelligent force) exists (though I suspect it does). And there is no hard proof I am "special" and I'm worried about having delusions again so it causes me to act conservatively.

And away we go. How about we just talk about what those two terms mean?

Supernatural: https://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=supernatural (155 documents found)

As far as "supernatural" goes...
https://www.lifesplayer.com/bible.php
"....I think all evidence of God and the paranormal can be explained by skeptics as coincidence, delusion, or hallucinations..."

So those supernatural articles might all be irrelevant to my beliefs...

intelligent force: https://plato.stanford.edu/search/search?query=intelligent+force (1260 documents found)

To find articles related to "intelligent force" quotes should be involved...
https://plato.stanford.edu/search/search?query="intelligent+force"
And there is one result....

I tell you what. Why don't you, excreationist, scan these documents and report back which are appropriate for the current discussion.

Think of me as a card catalog

I'd rather get to the point than try and bring in more vaguely relevant very lengthy documents for people to read....

 

[fromderinside]

OK so you aren't actually interested else you'd appreciate others who find ways to make sources easier to find.

What mystifies me is how one gets to the point when one admits one is working with belief.

I'm sure by your response here that you aren't interested in me holding forth on another "beauty of operationalism" preach.

 

[excreationist]

OK so you aren't actually interested else you'd appreciate others who find ways to make sources easier to find.

I'm looking for sources relating the speed of light and time dilation to simulations. I'm not interested in very lengthy articles about the philosophy of the supernatural.

What mystifies me is how one gets to the point when one admits one is working with belief.

Well I think my experiences with an (apparent) intelligent force involves a belief...

I'm sure by your response here that you aren't interested in me holding forth on another "beauty of operationalism" preach.

Sorry I'm not familiar with that area of philosophy.

 

[fromderinside]

Sorry I'm not familiar with that area of philosophy.

 Percy Williams Bridgman, Nobel prize winning physicist (1961), wrote the original paper on  Operationalism in 1927. He wrote from the perspective of a physical scientist doing scientific work.

From my perspective one can't understand entanglement unless one first understands the operations involved.

 

[excreationist]

Sorry I'm not familiar with that area of philosophy.

 Percy Williams Bridgman, Nobel prize winning physicist (1961), wrote the original paper on  Operationalism in 1927. He wrote from the perspective of a physical scientist doing scientific work.

From my perspective one can't understand entanglement unless one first understands the operations involved.

I don't think quantum entanglement really supports the idea of a simulation very strongly.... if that's what you mean by "entanglement".

 

[fromderinside]

I don't think quantum entanglement really supports the idea of a simulation very strongly.... if that's what you mean by "entanglement".

Actually it does (entangled response).

Entanglement can be resloved in classical terms by examining operations as "Entanglement Made Simple" https://www.quantamagazine.org/entanglement-made-simple-20160428/ illustrates.

The controlled experimental realization of entangled histories is delicate because it requires we gather partial information about our q-on. Conventional quantum measurements generally gather complete information at one time — for example, they determine a definite shape, or a definite color — rather than partial information spanning several times. But it can be done — indeed, without great technical difficulty. In this way we can give definite mathematical and experimental meaning to the proliferation of “many worlds” in quantum theory, and demonstrate its substantiality.

 

[excreationist]

So I already knew that it takes 8.3 minutes for light from the sun to reach us... but I found out that it takes 1.3 seconds for light from the moon and 0.13 seconds to orbit the earth (7.5 orbits per second) and 5.5 hours for light to reach pluto from the sun!
https://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/venus/q89.html

That low speed would help in having less CPU usage in a simulation.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Premise: Anything is possible
Therefore: Anything is possible

Brilliant!