> to your series of questions I would like to add one as first: > "What do you call universe?"
i think this question is most temporally cognitively perceptual in nature. as explained: > as long as we do not make this identification, it is futile to > speculate about "its" computability/computed sate. as later will be mentioned, boviously perception play a big role in this value, is your definition of the univers from the perspective of a human being, being that self within it's self, as projected outwards from a finite continuum into a supposedly infinite continuum? or are you looking at the univers from the point of view of a rock which site blindly in time without temporant perceptual motion? obviously there are many different perceptual universes, and any of them could be philosphically percieved by the mind, therefor any of them would be physically coorect on a perceptual model of a temporant cyclical universe. we have to keep in mind, the time itself may only be a function of the combined perceptual receptions of our own internally functioning senses biologically simultaneously now. > I see not too much value in assuming infinite memories > and infinite time of computation, that may lead to a game and i may i beg to ask is a computer supposed to under any assumption compute a continuous value of infinite using binary logic as it's base computational rate? >-calling "computation" the object to be computed. this is quite naturally the function of time works in the first place. time is the measure of the systematic computational functions of an internal system as measured by the temporant singularity of the external structures of that internal system as an alternatively functional singular temporant system of it's own. .: the nature of a coputationally temporant universe involves the notion of a singular object, calculating it's own internal reference states in order to functionally compute it's own new external appearance while maintaining it's own internal functions in time. > Is 'Multiverse' part of your universe, or vice versa? it occurs to me that while yes, absolutely the funcion of a multiverse is perceptually accurate, that when a computer 'calculates' temporal function, that it is calculating time from a computer's viewpoint, and not a human's percetual understanding. Therefor a true projection of an absolute univers would be one without life in it, and therefor one which we as humans are perceptually unviable to deal with. (except of course under the presence of some form of philosophical existentialism by behavioural thought process) ---- Original Message ----- From: "John M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Georges Quenot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 8:33 AM Subject: Re: Is the universe computable? > Dear George, > to your series of questions I would like to add one as first: > "What do you call universe?" > as long as we do not make this identification, it is futile to > speculate about "its" computability/computed sate. > I see not too much value in assuming infinite memories > and infinite time of computation, that may lead to a game > of words, calling "computation" the object to be computed. > Is 'Multiverse' part of your universe, or vice versa? > Regards > John Mikes > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Georges Quenot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 4:44 AM > Subject: Re: Is the universe computable? > > > > Georges Quenot wrote: > > > > > > [...] > > > I would be interested in reading the opinions of the participants > > > about that point and about the sense that could be given to the > > > question of what "happens" (in the simulated universe) in any non- > > > synchronous simulation "when" the simulation diverges ? > > > > Thanks for the replies. Until now I feel a bit confuse with them, > > possibly because I do not have an appropriate idea of what is meant > > exactly by "computable" and/or by what accounts for a simulation > > of the universe. I probably have some naive intuition about them. > > So maybe it would help to clarify some points: > > > > By computable, is by default assumed something like physically > > computable using current or future technologies or only formally > > computable (possibly considering virtual computers containing very > > much more memory locations than there are particles in the visible > > universe and for computation times very much longer than the actual > > age of the universe) ? In the latter case, does the memory of the > > computer need to be finite or can it be considered as unlimited ? > > Do the simulation has to end within a finite time or can the > > simulated universe be something like an asymptotic state of its > > description in a given formalism ? Alternatively or in other words, > > could the simulated universe be in some way the limit of a series > > of approximations computed with increasing available memories and > > computation times ? Is "computable" relative to the universe as a > > (spatio-temporal) whole or only to given supbarts of it ? > > > > Also I feel some confusion between the questions "Is the universe > > computable ?" and "Is the universe actually 'being' computed ?". > > What links do the participants see between them ? > > > > Finally, what link is there between the computability of the > > universe and the possibility of its exact description in the > > context of arithmetic ? > > > > > > Maybe too many questions for a single post. I didn't go through > > the whole archive and there might well be already answers to most > > of these so I welcome any reference to appropriate previous posts. > > By the way, are there some FAQs about these questions ? > > > > Georges. > > >
