I used to believe that the world is lazily loaded. That means the first moment I see something (e.g., a world map) is the point where all the past history to consistently explain the observation gets "locked in".
Was coming to say something like this. Gets to some fun conclusions - ex. paleontologists invent dinosaurs by looking for them.
Another angle on it would be showing that the universe has multiple possible levels of detail - that objects behave like newtonian point masses most of the time, that digestion is replaced by a simple hunger meter when nobody's paying attention.
From this direction, time's main function is compressing "now" so there's more space for something else later.
I'd be willing to believe that everyone has a god-given amount of universe rendering time that can be allocated in different ways, and that other people's attention stacks with it in a complex, layered way.
This thought experiment implies that humans, or conscious agents, represent a highly concentrated source of entropy, currently (mostly) confined to planet Earth. Meanwhile, in the vastness of space, most of the mass has settled into some relatively deterministic equilibria, with no conscious agents to alter the course of its future. Yet we're down here on the blue planet messing everything up.
Coupling this thought with the simulation theory, it makes me wonder how the simulation would respond to increasing entropy over a larger volume than just our local system. That is, if we send a bunch of biological/artificial agents in all directions throughout the cosmos and let them wreak havoc, would it crash the simulation? Or what if we just smash a bunch of asteroids out of their stable orbits and let their disruption cascade throughout the system? Or maybe we've already messed everything up by broadcasting highly entropic radio waves throughout a spherical volume with a radius of ~100 light years?
That would also mean that when I don't see or hear other people, they don't "exist" as physical things that can be seen or heard until I encounter a situation in which they would be.
It's the same as "If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"
But then again, that information has to be stored somewhere right?
Like, if a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around, sure you can say it isn't being perceived so it won't be "rendered" but the moment someone walks in the forest and sees that fallen tree, it would need to be rendered from some information about the fall and information of how it looked before the fall. That information would have to be sitting somewhere in limbo waiting to be rendered. So why not just actually let it sit IN the rendered "realm" and now you have one place for data to live in. You save on data transfer fees too.
sdwr|3 years ago
Another angle on it would be showing that the universe has multiple possible levels of detail - that objects behave like newtonian point masses most of the time, that digestion is replaced by a simple hunger meter when nobody's paying attention.
From this direction, time's main function is compressing "now" so there's more space for something else later.
I'd be willing to believe that everyone has a god-given amount of universe rendering time that can be allocated in different ways, and that other people's attention stacks with it in a complex, layered way.
TechBro8615|3 years ago
Coupling this thought with the simulation theory, it makes me wonder how the simulation would respond to increasing entropy over a larger volume than just our local system. That is, if we send a bunch of biological/artificial agents in all directions throughout the cosmos and let them wreak havoc, would it crash the simulation? Or what if we just smash a bunch of asteroids out of their stable orbits and let their disruption cascade throughout the system? Or maybe we've already messed everything up by broadcasting highly entropic radio waves throughout a spherical volume with a radius of ~100 light years?
polishdude20|3 years ago
It's the same as "If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"
But then again, that information has to be stored somewhere right?
Like, if a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around, sure you can say it isn't being perceived so it won't be "rendered" but the moment someone walks in the forest and sees that fallen tree, it would need to be rendered from some information about the fall and information of how it looked before the fall. That information would have to be sitting somewhere in limbo waiting to be rendered. So why not just actually let it sit IN the rendered "realm" and now you have one place for data to live in. You save on data transfer fees too.
RajT88|3 years ago
I have seen creationists in web forums trot this exact argument out (only the creator was God of course).
snozolli|3 years ago
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-universe-is-n...
sdwr|3 years ago
KwisatzHaderack|3 years ago
Spivak|3 years ago
orbz|3 years ago
dbtc|3 years ago
Red_Leaves_Flyy|3 years ago
carlmr|3 years ago