RE: Simulation Theory according to Dilbert
May 5, 2017 at 7:59 am
(This post was last modified: May 5, 2017 at 8:13 am by Edwardo Piet.)
@ Grandizer
Noumena=things in themselves.
I'm saying that time travel, for instance, is impossible because the future doesn't exist yet and the past no longer exists. There's nowhere else to travel.
If science says time travel is possible then it's not actually talking about time as we normally understand it. So it's not like a time machine that could actually travel to the past or future could exist. Space-time says time and space are one thing... therefore travelling past the speed of light would be to 'travel through time'...
People who believe time travel is possible are equivocating just like the Eternalists are.
So, anyways, if we ever got on a spaceship that travelled faster than light then by science's definition of time as space-time we would be travelling 'through time'.... however that would just be travelling faster than light and labelling that 'time travel'... it wouldn't actually be reaching a future that doesn't exist yet (which is impossible by definition).
With faster-than-light travel it would mean that we could travel somewhere faster than we could experience our own perception of it. It wouldn't mean we could travel somewhere faster than it itself even existed.
It would mean that we could physically arrive somewhere before our eyes could even see it and therefore in theory we could 'see it' before we saw it. Therefore we could 'see the future'--but only if our eyes could see faster than light.
But of course even if we could see faster than light... we wouldn't actually be seeing the future we would be seeing our own perceptions of something before we could normally see such a thing. Our normal perceptions being what we normally call 'the present'. But as soon as we could see past that then that would become the new present. Because the present is by definition whatever is present, even if it's experiencing our own experiences of things more quickly than we normally do.
It's the same as how when we look at the night sky and we see distant stars we are supposedly seeing the past... seeing how the stars were rather than how they are.
Once again: This is not possible. It's us seeing our own perception of the past, not the past itself. The past itself has by definition already gone.
Doesn't matter how powerful telescopes science has for astronomy, or microscopes for quantum mechanics, or what mathematics and theories are based on that -- science can only test our own observations of reality and not reality itself.
I agree yes the noumena can never be found and is impossible to find. That is my whole point. Hence why science can never test real time or real reality.
Now... to say that the noumenal world doesn't exist.... that's saying that nothing exists outside our own observations or the observations of science... that would be to say if no living beings with consciousness existed then reality would not exist...
...despise the noumenal not existing I think we will both agree that the idea of it not existing is absurd. Like reality would just disappear if we were not there to experience it.
Of course the noumena exists--real reality exists--objective reality exists... objective time exists.... objective space exists... outside our observations and perception. But no, science cannot test that. No one can reach it ever. It's impossible in principle. If it was reachable it would no longer be the noumenal world! It would no longer be objective reality! If objective reality really exists as we believe it does then it has to exist apart from subjective reality. It would have to be of a nature where it still exists if all subjects become extinct.
Science can't test whether reality would still exist if no one existed because they'd have to stop existing to test that... and once they stopped existing they wouldn't be able to test it.
Anyways.... what science is saying is that the way we think we perceive time is not how we actually perceive time. It's saying we're deluded about our own perceptions... it's not telling us what is beyond our perceptions.
We can't see ultraviolet and yet science can still find evidence that it exists... does this mean that scientists can test ultraviolet without using their perceptions? No... science uses their perceptions to discover ultraviolet indirectly. Scientists can't perceive ultraviolet but they can't discover evidence of ultraviolet without perceiving that evidence, yes?
Even when abstract arguments and theories are made... those abstract arguments and theories have to be based on emprical observations for it to still be science and not philosophy or logic, yes?
But I doubt any of this will get through to you because you say you dislike analogies because they're biased in favor of the argument being made. Well, duh--of course! That's how they work... by being in favor of an argument in order to illustrate it. That's not really a bias when it's a strong and accurate analogy that vividly illustrates a strong and accurate argument.
Analogies are only a problem when they're strawmen or when they don't illustrate the argument accurately.
It's just a way for you to sidestep the argument I'm making.
I don't know what's so hard to understand about the fact that it's impossible to experience reality apart from our own experiences of it and therefore science can't test time itself or anything else in-itself and so science has theories about the subjective reality we experience rather than objective reality.
Noumena=things in themselves.
I'm saying that time travel, for instance, is impossible because the future doesn't exist yet and the past no longer exists. There's nowhere else to travel.
If science says time travel is possible then it's not actually talking about time as we normally understand it. So it's not like a time machine that could actually travel to the past or future could exist. Space-time says time and space are one thing... therefore travelling past the speed of light would be to 'travel through time'...
People who believe time travel is possible are equivocating just like the Eternalists are.
So, anyways, if we ever got on a spaceship that travelled faster than light then by science's definition of time as space-time we would be travelling 'through time'.... however that would just be travelling faster than light and labelling that 'time travel'... it wouldn't actually be reaching a future that doesn't exist yet (which is impossible by definition).
With faster-than-light travel it would mean that we could travel somewhere faster than we could experience our own perception of it. It wouldn't mean we could travel somewhere faster than it itself even existed.
It would mean that we could physically arrive somewhere before our eyes could even see it and therefore in theory we could 'see it' before we saw it. Therefore we could 'see the future'--but only if our eyes could see faster than light.
But of course even if we could see faster than light... we wouldn't actually be seeing the future we would be seeing our own perceptions of something before we could normally see such a thing. Our normal perceptions being what we normally call 'the present'. But as soon as we could see past that then that would become the new present. Because the present is by definition whatever is present, even if it's experiencing our own experiences of things more quickly than we normally do.
It's the same as how when we look at the night sky and we see distant stars we are supposedly seeing the past... seeing how the stars were rather than how they are.
Once again: This is not possible. It's us seeing our own perception of the past, not the past itself. The past itself has by definition already gone.
Doesn't matter how powerful telescopes science has for astronomy, or microscopes for quantum mechanics, or what mathematics and theories are based on that -- science can only test our own observations of reality and not reality itself.
I agree yes the noumena can never be found and is impossible to find. That is my whole point. Hence why science can never test real time or real reality.
Now... to say that the noumenal world doesn't exist.... that's saying that nothing exists outside our own observations or the observations of science... that would be to say if no living beings with consciousness existed then reality would not exist...
...despise the noumenal not existing I think we will both agree that the idea of it not existing is absurd. Like reality would just disappear if we were not there to experience it.
Of course the noumena exists--real reality exists--objective reality exists... objective time exists.... objective space exists... outside our observations and perception. But no, science cannot test that. No one can reach it ever. It's impossible in principle. If it was reachable it would no longer be the noumenal world! It would no longer be objective reality! If objective reality really exists as we believe it does then it has to exist apart from subjective reality. It would have to be of a nature where it still exists if all subjects become extinct.
Science can't test whether reality would still exist if no one existed because they'd have to stop existing to test that... and once they stopped existing they wouldn't be able to test it.
Anyways.... what science is saying is that the way we think we perceive time is not how we actually perceive time. It's saying we're deluded about our own perceptions... it's not telling us what is beyond our perceptions.
We can't see ultraviolet and yet science can still find evidence that it exists... does this mean that scientists can test ultraviolet without using their perceptions? No... science uses their perceptions to discover ultraviolet indirectly. Scientists can't perceive ultraviolet but they can't discover evidence of ultraviolet without perceiving that evidence, yes?
Even when abstract arguments and theories are made... those abstract arguments and theories have to be based on emprical observations for it to still be science and not philosophy or logic, yes?
But I doubt any of this will get through to you because you say you dislike analogies because they're biased in favor of the argument being made. Well, duh--of course! That's how they work... by being in favor of an argument in order to illustrate it. That's not really a bias when it's a strong and accurate analogy that vividly illustrates a strong and accurate argument.
Analogies are only a problem when they're strawmen or when they don't illustrate the argument accurately.
It's just a way for you to sidestep the argument I'm making.
I don't know what's so hard to understand about the fact that it's impossible to experience reality apart from our own experiences of it and therefore science can't test time itself or anything else in-itself and so science has theories about the subjective reality we experience rather than objective reality.
