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" <> 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
> <>and the application
> of category theory to it 
> <,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
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to