By reading what you wrote and seeing that the argument you're making makes no sense. Specifically:

• I see no sense in which your thought experiment "has no time" but "appear[s] to have time".
• No, constructing the rationals from the natural numbers doesn't require "defining a process", unless you understand that phrase so broadly that "defining a process" doesn't in the least suggest temporality.
• Even if you had in fact described a thought experiment in which something appears to involve time but doesn't really, that obviously doesn't imply that time is an illusion.
  • I can describe a thought experiment in which something appears to involve sausages but doesn't really; does that mean sausages are an illusion?

This does not, in fact, show that time is an illusion.

How did you find out that time is an illusion?

No, it is not such evidence, but if any strong precognition will be proved to exist it would be evidence for simulation. And yes, we may be a property of the simulation or may be just brains in a vat which observe a simulation - its two different types of simulations.

Is inability to travel back in time - evidence that we're a simulation? Btw., wording "simulation in which we live" would imply that we're somehow separate from the simulation. It could well be that we ourselves do not exist without the simulation, and are merely the properties of simulation, - simulated beings.

Great. I didn't read the book yet, but where I think we fail the most, is underestimating the investment into new technologies. It is often through new technologies that we can solve a problem at large, and often, to develop these new technologies may require much less than buying the existing technology solutions in bulk,... if we could be just a little more creative in our altruism. So, I would like to propose another term: Effectively Creative Altruism (ECA).

ECA would rely thinking how to solve a problem once and for all, and not in some isolated case. For example, an effectively creative thinker who is strongly upset about the harm that mosquitoes transmitting malaria do, would tend to come up with more general solutions, like genetically modified mosquitoes, that pass on deadly genes, and destroy them all.

An ECA thinker would, instead of seeing the simple numbers of how much investment saves how many lives according to current best statistics, would consider, what technology under development would save many more lives, if it received the little money it needs to get developed and scaled.

For example, how much do we need until we can mass-produce and introduce use the paper microscopes.

While a simple Effective Altruist relies on well-known statistics, an Effectively Creative Altruist would rely on as-of-yet unrejected hypotheses that follow from well-founded creative reasoning, and donating for such innovation, and that require that little bit of financial support and effort to verify.

My point is -- we should not reject great ideas, because they have no statistical evidence yet.

It is sufficient to define your self precisely and concisely, and preserve that definition.

infty is not an English word

It's an abbreviation of the English infinity and most people won't easily grasp it. Companies like Amazon and Google on the other hand have names that are a lot more neutral.

infty seems to me very strongly culture driven. You likely need to spell it out for most people to remember.

In general it's better to optimize for effectiveness than to try do everything and the kitchen sink.

But ideas are not a scarce resource, anyone can easily copy them. Even if you created good ideas, why would anyone pay anything? Unless you patent your patentable ideas I don't think this system can work.