Thorham

Or the vegans eat people like you instead. Veganism isn't a diet, after all. I suppose we've also evolved to live in cities, drive cars, use computers, etc... In this day and age many people have a choice. That people choose their taste buds is one thing, using evolution as an excuse is another. Back when I still ate meat I certainly didn't try to justify it, I simply didn't give a damn. Is that so hard to admit?

Wrong, it's information in the brain (and that's testable).

We're not bodies.

While that's true, it's a philosophical matter. Right, but can show that time doesn't need processes? If the model says it doesn't, then you should be able to show that.

That's the model, I'm talking about outside of the model Saying that time is what clocks measure is the same as saying that cars are what gets you from A to B. It doesn't say much about what it is. Nothing wrong with trying to figure out what something is. Seems that saying that time is the continuation of processes, and that the speed of these processes is variable, doesn't actually go against the model. I could be wrong, of course.

I don't know if there's more, but I certainly hope so. I don't like the idea of just being information in my brain.

Depends on your definition of soul. A soul could be the part of the information in the brain that describes the person. But what is time outside of the current models? It seems to simply be the continuation of processes in reality.

It doesn't suggest anything, it simply states things the way they are. If you have enough time you can do it, if not, you can't. Whether or not you can have enough time is something else. It should be clear from what I said that right now you can't do it. If you think I meant to say that it may be possible right now, then you misread my reply. The poster after me didn't seem to misread it, so it can't be al that unclear, now can it? Of course it isn't, see below. Neither was I. You said this: And I disagreed. That's what the argument is about. It doesn't matter. You say it's impossible, while you can't possibly know that. Only under current knowledge is it not possible. Whether or not it truly is impossible is unknown, and entirely irrelevant to the OP's original question, just like our argument.

No, I'm not, and if you read my first post, then you'd know that. Our argument revolves around my incorrect claim that super computers can count to 10^82, which you've already shown to be incorrect. Of course, our whole argument has nothing to do with the OP's question, but that's another matter altogether. To which I replied that the program to do that is really easy to write (add+carry), but that it's not practical because it takes to long to run. My current claim is that it may be possible in the future depending on whether or not you can build things that are smaller than atoms (MUCH smaller), which we now obviously can't do. Like I said before, only time will tell if this is possible or not. I refuse to believe al sorts of things are impossible just because under our current knowledge it's impossible. Time and time again has this mind set proven to be wrong. What the limit is, I don't know. Obviously none of this has anything to do with the OP's question, which I already answered in my first post, where I made not a single assumption about possible future technology, and where I never claimed that it's practical to do.

Yes, I did, after which I used it as an example to try and show that numbers like that are irrelevant. In the context of my example, which was relevant, it is. The visible universe isn't, but the visible universe doesn't say anything about the size of the actual universe. The OP didn't ask about it, no, but I had already explained why it isn't feasible in my first post. And that's where you're potentially wrong, because no one knows how small things can ultimately be made. Assuming atoms are the smallest units that you can use to fabricate things, it indeed seems impossible, but I'm counting on the possibility that they're not the limit. Obviously, only time will tell.

Not gonna happen buddy boy. Yeah, and the number I used in my super computer example was 10^82, which is what all this bs is about. Perhaps you should re-read that so you know why I gave that number as an example. Me? No, YOU are wrong. YOU are twisting the whole thing to make it seem as if I said that 10^331 can be practically counted to. I NEVER said or implied that All I've said about 10^331 is that it's not practically possible now, and I never said we'll be able to do it in the future.

Stop telling me I pretend anything, I don't pretend. I have an opinion about this, and if you don't agree with it, too effiing bad. I think that in a million years we're going to be so advanced that we look like less than microbes today, and that counting that high will indeed be easy. Don't agree? I couldn't care any less if I tried. At least get the number right when pointing fingers. It's 10^82 not your much larger number. I already admitted to making a mistake, what more do you want?

Let's hope not.

It may seem like that to you, but a million years is a very long time.

I'm not expecting it to happen any time soon, of course, but who can say what's possible in a million years? Perhaps it'll be child's play by then. Remember the Eniac? Could do 5000 additions per second. Now look at supercomputers. Astonishing difference.

What I mean is the point where there isn't anything more to figure out.

Yeah, you're right, I over estimated super computers. It probably won't stay like that, of course. I'm not pretending anything. I already explained it in my first post.

It doesn't. The number of particles in the universe is just a big number, not necessarily a number you can't practically count to. Take the number of atoms in the universe. That's about 10^82. You can practically count to that with super computers. Stuff like that just doesn't mean anything.

I already said in my first post that it takes too long. You said it's impossible, which it's not, of course. Saying it's impossible is what's not helpful, because it's not correct, and doesn't show the problem with doing this.

That's not relevant. It's not impossible in principle. It's just not practically manageable. In fact, any finite number can be counted to in principle.

Writing such a program is extremely easy, it's just a counter loop that counts from 0 to 2^1100-1 (yes, that's very easy, just do additions with carry). In a practical sense there's no point because it takes to long to count that high. It's not practically possible unless you have an extremely large amount of time to wait for the program to complete. No way around it, I'm afraid.

That at some point you're going to have to accept that things are simply as they are seems obvious, but I don't like the idea of us already being at that point. We've only just gotten started! It would sure be nice to know a little more.

How unsatisfying

If you can still ask that question, then you can't say that you measured the curvature. Basically, I'm asking if it's impossible in principle to perform experiments that show whether or not the curvature physically exists.

Is it? What if the curvature is there and can be measured somehow?