> 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]> To: <[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). >