Virtual Time Travel
14 views
Skip to first unread message
Atticus
Dec 13, 2008, 5:05:25 AM12/13/08
to Pod Tycoon
Could simulated reality lead to time time travel? If reality is a
simulation, could it not be set to rewind? Or perhaps there is a save
point (like many life-like computer games) wherein we could return and
play again differently?
It is not a great idea to look at life as a game, but I think this is
a logical conclusion one could reach if reality indeed turned out to
be a simulation.
simulation, could it not be set to rewind? Or perhaps there is a save
point (like many life-like computer games) wherein we could return and
play again differently?
It is not a great idea to look at life as a game, but I think this is
a logical conclusion one could reach if reality indeed turned out to
be a simulation.
Matthew
Dec 14, 2008, 2:39:24 AM12/14/08
to Pod Tycoon
Very interesting idea, Atticus, and one that branches into many other
sci-fi-tinged woolgathering, similar to what Phillip K Dick explored
with his book "I Can Remember That For You Wholesale" which was
loosely made into the movie "Total Recall", and in the movie "Eternal
Sunshine of the Spotless Mind". When your memory is manipulated to
believe you have or have not experienced something, in what sense has
reality *for you* been altered?
If I am an AC, and I get restored to a previous checkpoint, what would
I experience? Has my previous self been essentially killed off and a
new self created? If one supposes that this is all a purely
deterministic system, with no ineffable, inviolate, constant,
Descartian soul which inhabits my remade self, then compared to how I
was when that checkpoint was saved, there should literally be no
difference in my experience or composition, no shred of evidence I can
gather that "I" used to exist in some more time-advanced state. If pod
resets our sim to a previous point (which I think he could, just as I
can restore a program build to a previous state and rerun it from that
point), I don't think we'd have any clue that it occurred. I don't see
that as time travel in the "Back to the Future" sense: in that sense I
would inhabit the past *while retaining knowledge of the future*.
If the sim is run in reverse, it reminds me of the idea in physics
that if the universe begins to contract there would be a reversal of
time's arrow: at any one point we would feel just like we do now, with
memories of the past (which we are really about to re-experience) and
lack of knowledge of the future (which in fact we have experienced but
the sim reversal has undone all memories that were written about it).
So arguably we could be running in reverse right now, if one accepts
that the sense of "now" is just a succession of moments. If the sim is
running forward (on pod's timeline), the next "now" will be one in
which I have a memory of the "now" that used to exist, and no
knowledge or memory of the next "now" that will follow. If the sim is
running backward, the next "now" will be one in which I still have a
bunch of "nows" in my brain's memory, all of which the sim will
recreate eventually, and no knowledge or memory of the "now" that the
sim just created. So from my point of view, the situation is no
different in any given moment, no matter what direction the sim is
running.
Good stuff Atticus! Keep it coming!
sci-fi-tinged woolgathering, similar to what Phillip K Dick explored
with his book "I Can Remember That For You Wholesale" which was
loosely made into the movie "Total Recall", and in the movie "Eternal
Sunshine of the Spotless Mind". When your memory is manipulated to
believe you have or have not experienced something, in what sense has
reality *for you* been altered?
If I am an AC, and I get restored to a previous checkpoint, what would
I experience? Has my previous self been essentially killed off and a
new self created? If one supposes that this is all a purely
deterministic system, with no ineffable, inviolate, constant,
Descartian soul which inhabits my remade self, then compared to how I
was when that checkpoint was saved, there should literally be no
difference in my experience or composition, no shred of evidence I can
gather that "I" used to exist in some more time-advanced state. If pod
resets our sim to a previous point (which I think he could, just as I
can restore a program build to a previous state and rerun it from that
point), I don't think we'd have any clue that it occurred. I don't see
that as time travel in the "Back to the Future" sense: in that sense I
would inhabit the past *while retaining knowledge of the future*.
If the sim is run in reverse, it reminds me of the idea in physics
that if the universe begins to contract there would be a reversal of
time's arrow: at any one point we would feel just like we do now, with
memories of the past (which we are really about to re-experience) and
lack of knowledge of the future (which in fact we have experienced but
the sim reversal has undone all memories that were written about it).
So arguably we could be running in reverse right now, if one accepts
that the sense of "now" is just a succession of moments. If the sim is
running forward (on pod's timeline), the next "now" will be one in
which I have a memory of the "now" that used to exist, and no
knowledge or memory of the next "now" that will follow. If the sim is
running backward, the next "now" will be one in which I still have a
bunch of "nows" in my brain's memory, all of which the sim will
recreate eventually, and no knowledge or memory of the "now" that the
sim just created. So from my point of view, the situation is no
different in any given moment, no matter what direction the sim is
running.
Good stuff Atticus! Keep it coming!
Winston Zardo
Dec 17, 2008, 9:02:43 PM12/17/08
to Pod Tycoon
Why is it not a good idea to view life as a game?
Zardo
Zardo
Daryl O'Donohue
Dec 18, 2008, 3:34:38 AM12/18/08
to pod-t...@googlegroups.com
Well, when I am playing Halo and I fall off a cliff because I have made a leap I kinda thought I could make, I die. And I do not think twice about it. I have extra lives, save points, etc.
Life does not seem to have those.
However, if it IS a simulation, and we as individuals make the rules for each simulated reality, I may well have extra lives and save points that I can revert back to when the going gets tough. That would definitely be ideal, even if I had to remain ignorant about it.
Taking needless risks that could involve death and the uncertainty about what comes after it is usually what keeps me from taking the game view.
Still, it would be nice....
Life does not seem to have those.
However, if it IS a simulation, and we as individuals make the rules for each simulated reality, I may well have extra lives and save points that I can revert back to when the going gets tough. That would definitely be ideal, even if I had to remain ignorant about it.
Taking needless risks that could involve death and the uncertainty about what comes after it is usually what keeps me from taking the game view.
Still, it would be nice....
Matthew
Dec 18, 2008, 5:50:03 AM12/18/08
to Pod Tycoon
Daryl and Zardo, these are good observations and thanks for keeping it
all going!
My son is now 13 and he had grown up with videogames, as I have worked
in the biz since before he was born. So we have talked about many
thing related to games; you may find of interest this article based on
an interview of us: http://www.fordfam.com/matthew/blog/article-about-games-and-parenting-featuring-me-and-dylan/
Anyway, we have talked about this very subject, with increasing
sophistication as he has aged, of how decisions in games differs from
decisions in life. The wonderful thing about games, and why we humans
have through the millennia been drawn to play, is that in a game, you
have a mini-life, a constrained model of life whose consequences
cannot impinge upon real life. So you can experiment more freely.
But what if you are not certain if you are in the equivalent of a
game, and have something bigger you can graduate into when this game
if over? As pod says (I am I believe myself), to be certain of a
rewarding afterlife makes one take this life less seriously, if
seriously means to act in the way that helps life in this world the
most. So life while believing one is in a game, or a prelude to a much
bigger and better afterlife, is quite different from life while
believing one is in a life that, once extinguished, means total
extinction, with only the effect one had as the legacy and permanence
one leaves behind.
Which life is better?
On Dec 18, 6:34 pm, "Daryl O'Donohue" <daryl.odono...@gmail.com>
wrote:
all going!
My son is now 13 and he had grown up with videogames, as I have worked
in the biz since before he was born. So we have talked about many
thing related to games; you may find of interest this article based on
an interview of us: http://www.fordfam.com/matthew/blog/article-about-games-and-parenting-featuring-me-and-dylan/
Anyway, we have talked about this very subject, with increasing
sophistication as he has aged, of how decisions in games differs from
decisions in life. The wonderful thing about games, and why we humans
have through the millennia been drawn to play, is that in a game, you
have a mini-life, a constrained model of life whose consequences
cannot impinge upon real life. So you can experiment more freely.
But what if you are not certain if you are in the equivalent of a
game, and have something bigger you can graduate into when this game
if over? As pod says (I am I believe myself), to be certain of a
rewarding afterlife makes one take this life less seriously, if
seriously means to act in the way that helps life in this world the
most. So life while believing one is in a game, or a prelude to a much
bigger and better afterlife, is quite different from life while
believing one is in a life that, once extinguished, means total
extinction, with only the effect one had as the legacy and permanence
one leaves behind.
Which life is better?
On Dec 18, 6:34 pm, "Daryl O'Donohue" <daryl.odono...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Well, when I am playing Halo and I fall off a cliff because I have made a
> leap I kinda thought I could make, I die. And I do not think twice about it.
> I have extra lives, save points, etc.
>
> Life does not seem to have those.
> (In reply to Zardo)
> leap I kinda thought I could make, I die. And I do not think twice about it.
> I have extra lives, save points, etc.
>
> Life does not seem to have those.
Daryl O'Donohue
Dec 18, 2008, 6:17:15 AM12/18/08
to pod-t...@googlegroups.com
Good points. Growing up with video games has been fun! ;)
Which life is better? My life experience leaves me inclined to say that existence in a happy reality is above all the best thing you could hope for. What makes one person happy may make the next cringe though. So...
Hmmm. Even legacy fades away. It may take a long time, but it will go too. If this is all we have, then we might as well squeeze as much joy out of it as we can. But I mentioned mental illness earlier. It seems to me that if you reach a point in your life (mentally ill, physically ill, shame-ridden, too-much-loss-in-life, or whatever), you are better off to roll the dice with death and see what happens.
I do not mean for that to sound cruel or trite. But I have worked with patients who have convinced me of that. Like I said, if you cannot think, what have you got? Because death is so open-ended, we are inclined to think that anything is possible. Some of these patients cannot tolerate their existence; life is a burden in the strictest sense of the word. These people would tell you that the fake-life-of-bliss is far better to a real one of agony.
I however, have this nagging feeling in the back of my mind that this may be all we have. What I cannot reconcile that with is the logical impossiblity of it all. We cannot stop being conscious; if we do, we percieve the next instant as immediately following the last, no matter the time span in between. Ie, if the sim is shut off for ten thousand years between the beginning of this sentence and the end, we would not know. Similarly, upon death, no matter what the experience is, whatever it is will happen seemingly immediately. Instantaneously to us. Even if we cannot remember before that instant.
......so....I think the fake happiness far outways the real misery. It is noble to say that we would rather suffer than die, because at least it is something, but I fall back once again on mental health, where simple existence is torment. I think it is noble to alleviate that suffering. Selfish....maybe. But you have to help yourself first. Who knows? Maybe there is a happily-ever-after phase to all this. That would be ideal....
-Daryl
Which life is better? My life experience leaves me inclined to say that existence in a happy reality is above all the best thing you could hope for. What makes one person happy may make the next cringe though. So...
Hmmm. Even legacy fades away. It may take a long time, but it will go too. If this is all we have, then we might as well squeeze as much joy out of it as we can. But I mentioned mental illness earlier. It seems to me that if you reach a point in your life (mentally ill, physically ill, shame-ridden, too-much-loss-in-life, or whatever), you are better off to roll the dice with death and see what happens.
I do not mean for that to sound cruel or trite. But I have worked with patients who have convinced me of that. Like I said, if you cannot think, what have you got? Because death is so open-ended, we are inclined to think that anything is possible. Some of these patients cannot tolerate their existence; life is a burden in the strictest sense of the word. These people would tell you that the fake-life-of-bliss is far better to a real one of agony.
I however, have this nagging feeling in the back of my mind that this may be all we have. What I cannot reconcile that with is the logical impossiblity of it all. We cannot stop being conscious; if we do, we percieve the next instant as immediately following the last, no matter the time span in between. Ie, if the sim is shut off for ten thousand years between the beginning of this sentence and the end, we would not know. Similarly, upon death, no matter what the experience is, whatever it is will happen seemingly immediately. Instantaneously to us. Even if we cannot remember before that instant.
......so....I think the fake happiness far outways the real misery. It is noble to say that we would rather suffer than die, because at least it is something, but I fall back once again on mental health, where simple existence is torment. I think it is noble to alleviate that suffering. Selfish....maybe. But you have to help yourself first. Who knows? Maybe there is a happily-ever-after phase to all this. That would be ideal....
-Daryl
Matthew
Dec 19, 2008, 9:34:07 PM12/19/08
to Pod Tycoon
Well, not to branch off into my personal philosophy too much-- it's a
whole other subject-- but I believe in a kind of collective hedonism,
where the only real point to existence is to feel positive emotions,
and do things which enable others, both present and future, to do the
same. This gets complicated, of course, because people feel joy,
happiness, love, contentment, all those things for different reasons
from each other-- see the "Golden Rule" discussion elsewhere in the
forum.
Even though I don't believe that there is any personal experience
after death, I still can, like you, conclude that I am better off
ending my existence than continuing it. The conditions for that are
pretty improbable and, knock on wood, won't ever happen to me. It's
just too uncertain what the true impact of one's continued life is,
and being an optimist, I'd likely hang on longer than I reasonably
should in the hopes that I can still bring a bit more joy into my or
another's life by doing so. And, I am not *sure* that there is no
experience to be had after death, so I may luck out and get more after
all. I just don't count on it, and live with the belief and effective
certainty that there is no afterlife.
Like you, I have more than a small nagging feeling that we have no
clue at all about the real nature of reality, consciousness, time, and
so on. In a thousand years I hope humanity is still around and better
than ever, and if so I think they will look back at pretty much
everything we believe with our science and religion and laugh at how
in the dark we were. But what can I do? I take the best guess I can as
to what's what, and live as well as I can, and help others do the
same.
Sometimes I think it can be fine to believe something that is not
true, if it truly has no drawbacks or consequences, including the
crushing letdown of finding out one has been wrong. Some (like Pascal)
used that argument to say one then may as well life as if there *is* a
heaven waiting. But in my opinion, living like that has too many
drawbacks to justify it.
Good thoughts Daryl!
--Matthew
On Dec 18, 9:17 pm, "Daryl O'Donohue" <daryl.odono...@gmail.com>
wrote:
whole other subject-- but I believe in a kind of collective hedonism,
where the only real point to existence is to feel positive emotions,
and do things which enable others, both present and future, to do the
same. This gets complicated, of course, because people feel joy,
happiness, love, contentment, all those things for different reasons
from each other-- see the "Golden Rule" discussion elsewhere in the
forum.
Even though I don't believe that there is any personal experience
after death, I still can, like you, conclude that I am better off
ending my existence than continuing it. The conditions for that are
pretty improbable and, knock on wood, won't ever happen to me. It's
just too uncertain what the true impact of one's continued life is,
and being an optimist, I'd likely hang on longer than I reasonably
should in the hopes that I can still bring a bit more joy into my or
another's life by doing so. And, I am not *sure* that there is no
experience to be had after death, so I may luck out and get more after
all. I just don't count on it, and live with the belief and effective
certainty that there is no afterlife.
Like you, I have more than a small nagging feeling that we have no
clue at all about the real nature of reality, consciousness, time, and
so on. In a thousand years I hope humanity is still around and better
than ever, and if so I think they will look back at pretty much
everything we believe with our science and religion and laugh at how
in the dark we were. But what can I do? I take the best guess I can as
to what's what, and live as well as I can, and help others do the
same.
Sometimes I think it can be fine to believe something that is not
true, if it truly has no drawbacks or consequences, including the
crushing letdown of finding out one has been wrong. Some (like Pascal)
used that argument to say one then may as well life as if there *is* a
heaven waiting. But in my opinion, living like that has too many
drawbacks to justify it.
Good thoughts Daryl!
--Matthew
On Dec 18, 9:17 pm, "Daryl O'Donohue" <daryl.odono...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Winston Zardo
Dec 26, 2008, 12:39:48 PM12/26/08
to Pod Tycoon
There is a philosophy of games, both ephemeral and persistent. They
both have certain rules. Ephemeral games have a point of
termination...when the clock runs out...football, basketball, etc. or
when your opponent is defeated, chess, checkers or backgammon.
Zardo
> > -Daryl- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
both have certain rules. Ephemeral games have a point of
termination...when the clock runs out...football, basketball, etc. or
when your opponent is defeated, chess, checkers or backgammon.
Zardo
>
> - Show quoted text -
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages