> It seems to me that there is a very strong assupmtion here which
> is that there should be some synchronicity between the "time" in >the
> postulated computer into which the universe would be simulated >and
> the time inside that simulated universe

I have been studying the function of what I refer to as intergalactic time
in a case I call,
Where does time come from when I am a rock,
very akin to the what is it like to be a bat question in philosophy,
studying the funcitons of actual physical time from a molecular standpoint
are very different to the nature of time from a human perceptual standpoint.

when we measure the universe in motion, we tend to do so in orbital cycles
of days, years and orbital pathways [i.e. comets...]

>>(as this is typically the
>>case when an electronic device is simulated).

Also, keeping in mind that the computer itself is not only finite it's own
containment of self, as the universe, speciafically [imposed] is not. the
computer is also nothing more than a synthesized state of physio-temporal
events//effects within motion by theory of time.

the computer has a common ground, a 60hz, 120v input freq.
this is translated into +/- 5,12v dc (1,1.5 amp) current,
which in turn becomes functionally oscillative at a rate of
20mhz - 2ghz and is thereby functional as a very sensitive
binary computational [oscillative] device. In this very sense, the
computer's function is the very operative essence of the coputer timing it's
own functions, measuring the binary differences of the temporant input
values, and [based on interal programming sequences] delivers some form of
variable perceptual output predetermined by the user upon [data] entry.

the universe itsself recives no common input aside from the relative
[translational//fluctuational] fields of masses being present in light
within space time and other such physical frequency noises, the entire
universe has little to no common relation between all of its billions of
galaxies and it's infinite sections of space time [mass energy] in motion.
The inter relative movements of the motions of planets and suns would simply
be much to complex for calculating some from of common frequency/time ration
by which time can 'now' be determined instantaneously [by measured
perceptions] universally.

whereas the computer itself can predict cross sections of temporal alignment
within motion, it cannot use these inflections to determine any set ultimate
beginnings or endings to these patterns to an infinite [temporally chaotic,
unpredicatable, misaligned] universe without us as humans, actually
physically understanding what its like, for a rock, to [physically] know
[its] own 'time'.

ultimately, the computer would not be able to define an infinite of logical
matter based temporant rotations in a singular moment.
The 'base' frequency rate of measure is always provided by some form of
external course. In the case of the computer, it's a function of translating
the input source voltage by using an internal power supply.

How could the computer control the function of realization by which the
source control input of measurable time is determined. When exploring how
the computer relates to time universally, it is important to keep in mind
that this is somewhat akin to sudying the biological process of your own
body, using your own eyes, brain and feelings in order to 'compute' them
temporally as biological functions, using those same biological functions as
the source of that internal 'self' computation{al}// measure

----- Original Message -----
From: "Georges Quenot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 11:32 AM
Subject: Is the universe computable?

> I start from a part of this post from David Barrett-Lennard (Mon,
> 3 Nov 2003 19:48:49) but I could probably hev selected several
> similar other ones:
> > Given the "source code" for the simulation of our universe, it would
> > seem to be possible to add some extra instructions that test for a
> > certain condition to be met in order to tamper with the simulation.
> > It would seem likely that there will exist simulations that match our
> > own up to a certain point in time, but then diverge.  Eg it is
> > possible for a simulation to have a rule that an object will suddenly
> > manifestitself at a particular time and place.  The simulated conscious
> > beings in such a universe would be surprised to find that induction
> > fails at the moment the simulation diverges.
> It seems to me that there is a very strong assupmtion here which
> is that there should be some synchronicity between the "time" in the
> postulated computer into which the universe would be simulated and
> the time inside that simulated universe (as this is typically the
> case when an electronic device is simulated).
> But such an assumption not only does not seem necessary in any way
> but it also does not seem possibly consistent (or it would be very
> arbitrary at least) with a universe like ours for what we know of
> the implications of general relativity (it does not seem possible
> to define any global time in any consistent way in our universe).

Reply via email to