Please forget the second. Half of the first paragraph. It is a mmeanigless but the rest may be understandable El 15/08/2012 15:14, "Alberto G. Corona" <agocor...@gmail.com> escribió:

## Advertising

> I ´m seduced and intrigued by the Bruno´s final conclussións of the COMP > hypothesis. But I had a certain disconfort with the idea of a simulation of > the reality by means of an algorithm for reasons I will describe later. I > found that either if the nature of our perception of reality) can be of the > thesis of a simulation at a certain level of substitution of a phisical or > mathematical reality, this simulation is, and only is, a discrete manifold, > with discreteness defined by the substitution level, which is a subset of a > continuous manifold that is the equation M of superstring theory of > wathever mathematical structure that describe the universe. The > equivalence may be shown as follows: > > A imperative computation is equivalent to a mathematical structure thanks > to the work on denotational semantics > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denotational_semantics>and the application > of category theory to it > <https://www.google.es/search?q=denotational+semantics+imperative+monads&sugexp=chrome,mod=11&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#hl=en&sugexp=efrsh&gs_nf=1&tok=VMyaXoMGarRPPBvFsyx1Cg&pq=denotational%20semantics%20imperative%20monads&cp=49&gs_id=1q&xhr=t&q=denotational+semantics+imperative+category+theory&pf=p&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&oq=denotational+semantics+imperative+category+theory&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=4beb944d59246923&biw=1092&bih=514> > . > > Suppose that we know the M theory equation. A particular simulation can > be obtained in a straighfordward way by means of an algorithm that compute > a sequence of positions and the respective values in the M equation (which > must specify wether there is a particle, its nature and state at this point > or more precisely the value of the wave equation at this N-position or > wathever are the relevant parameters at this level of substitution), > perhaps the sucession of points can be let´s say in a progression of > concentric n-dimensional circles around the singularity. this algoritm is > equivalent to the ordered set obtained by the combination of two kind of > functions (1) for obtaining sucessive N-dimensional positions and (2) the > function M(pos) itself for that particular point. The simulation then is a > mathematical structure composed by the ordered set of these points, which > is a subset of the manifold described by the M equation. (When a > computation is pure, like this, the arrows between categories are > functions). > > Suppose that we do not know the equation fo the M theory, and maybe it > does not exist, but COMP holds and we start with the dovetailer algoritm > at a fortunate substitution level. Then we are sure that a complete > mathematical description of reality exist (perhaps not the more concrete > for our local universe), since the imperative algoritm can be (tanks to > denotational semantics) described in terms of category theory. > > In any case, I believe, similar conclussion holds. Although in the > consequence of machine psychology in the case of COMP, the mind imposes a > fortunate and robust algoritm as description of our local universe, and in > the case of a mathematical universe this requirement is substituted by a > fortunate and coherent mathematical structure. Anyhow, both are equivalent > since one implies the other. Both of them reject phisicalism and the mind > stablish requirement for the nature of what we call Physics. Perhaps one > may be more general, and the other may bring more details > > A question open is the nature of time and the progression of the > simulation of the points. Theoretically, for obtaining a subset of the > points of a mathematical structure, the simulation can proceed in any > direction, independent on the gradient of entropy. It can proceed backwards > or laterally, since the value of a ndimensional point does not depend on > any other point, if we have the M equation. Moreover, time is local, there > is no meaning of absolute time for the universe, so the simulation can not > progress with a uniform notion of time. A local portion of the universe > does make sense to have an uniform time, but the level of substitution > necessary may force the locality of time to be very small. At the limit, > the simulation may be forced to be massively parallel with as many local > times as particles, and the model becomes the one of a self computing > universe. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.