/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15335759
The processor that renders the reality can and has been re-spec'd in terms of speed of light (refresh rate), hence the variable speed of light. So the current speed of light CAN be increased if the creator wishes, but then that will then just be the new 'speed of light' constraint.

>>15256062
AI says all kinds of dumb shit
>>15256080
>no argument
>>15256116
Our time in this universe is defined and specified by the temporal constraints of THIS reality though. So I don't know know what constraints are placed on the 'non-this universe' reality. I don't think time is some 'substance'. It's virtual, wether it be in a dream, another consciousness VR, or in the waking consciousness based VR, the one called the 'physical' universe. Kant and I were talking about THIS universe. Not sure if that addresses your point or not. Premise:
ALL consciousness based VRs begin, be they visual day dream thoughts, sleep time dreams, hallucinations, or VRs such as the ones we are immersed in that we receive as a sensual, waking data stream called the 'physical' world. There is a first, call it DELTA T of time. A first planck cycle. In the case of the big bang, this would not have been rendered to any observer, it would have just been internal calculations, maybe of 'superposed' (metaphor, it's just data) different branches of possible outcomes until there evolved in one of the branches a bio avatar suitable for a non-local individuated unit of consciousness to log onto and make decisions with, at which point the first 'collapse' happened, ie the first defined values in spacetime with the classical information constraints (pic rel). And so the cycles of the pre-consciousness immersion could be MUCH 'faster', ie the pre consciousness reality didn't have to go on for what to us would seem like 'billions of years'. Or, in a non-evolution scenario, the system was booted up with APPARENT age, and the 'distant past' is just rendered with procedural generation according to what would be PROBABLE to be there in a universe simulated to look much older than it is. This would be a young earth scenario. Either way is past finite though.

>>15186843
>Is the speed of light arbitrary?
It has to do with the refresh rate of the simulation, see pic. It's not arbitrary, but it can be upgraded if need be. It can and HAS changed. And for an extensive explanation on what it is and why it changes, see this vid. Speed it up to at least 1.5 though, because he talks slow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1axh6ki0oc
Nobody else is going to give you this correct answer by the way, since most of the consciousnesses immersed in the reality don't want to admit it's a simulation for some reason.

>>15194965
Nothing, it's completely consistent with a virtual reality. see pic
>In contrast, a photon as a screen pixel can only move from point-to-point as fast as the screen refresh rate allows.In contrast, a photon as a screen pixel can only move from point-to-point as fast as the screen refresh rate allows.
So this explains the no-signalling theorem.

>>15176252
Has nothing to do with einstein. He just noticed it first. It has to do with the fact that the physical world is a VR.

>>15159530
>How fast could we go
See the no communication theorem with regard to constraints on sending classical information. There is a reason this theorem holds by the way, it has to do with with the fact that the physical world is virtual. The refresh rate of physical reality, see pic.

>>15127975
>Terrible popsci
No. The guy is an ACTUAL scientist.
>Brian Whitworth, BSc, BA, MA(Hons), PhD

>>14798646
>Are the laws of physics real yes or no?
Yes, there is a ruleset, just as in any virtual reality. But they can change, as with the speed of light. The players can develop tech with more precise measuring capabilities and so processing demand increases. This is why you have varying speed of light. Here is a vid that explains the speed of light. It is time stamped. Put it on 1.5. You will never have a question about the speed of light again and it will make sense now. You will understand the no signalling theorem.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1axh6ki0oc&t=229s