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:

> 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.

Reply via email to