# Universe on a Chip

```>
>
>   "If the universe were a simulation, would the constant speed of light
correspond to the clock speed driving the simulation? In other words, the
“CPU speed?” ```
```
As we are “inside” the simulation, all attempts to measure the speed of the
simulation appear as a constant value.

Light “executes” (what we call “movement”) at one instruction per cycle.

Any device we built to attempt to measure the speed of light is also inside
the simulation, so even though the “outside” CPU clock could be changing
speed, we will always see it as the same constant value.

A “cycle” is how long it takes all the information in the universe to
update itself relative to each other. That is all the speed of light really
is. The speed of information updating in the universe… (more
here<http://www.quora.com/Physics/If-the-universe-were-a-simulation-would-the-constant-speed-of-light-correspond-to-the-clock-speed-driving-the-simulation-In-other-words-the-CPU-speed?__snids__=61798888>http://www.quora.com/Physics/If-the-universe-were-a-simulation-would-the-constant-speed-of-light-correspond-to-the-clock-speed-driving-the-simulation-In-other-words-the-CPU-speed?)

I can make the leap from CPU clock frequency to the speed of light in a
vacuum if I view light as an experienced event or energy state which occurs
local to matter rather than literally traveling through space. With this
view, the correlation between distance and latency is an organizational
one, governing sequence and priority of processing rather than the presumed
literal existence of racing light bodies (photons).

This would be consistent with your model of Matrix-universe on a
meta-universal CPU in that light speed is simply the frequency at which the
computer processes raw bits. The change of light speed when propagating
through matter or gravitational fields etc wouldn’t be especially
consistent with this model…why would the ghost of a supernova slow down the
cosmic computer in one area of memory, etc?

The model that I have been developing suggests however that the CPU model
would not lead to realism or significance though, and could only generate
unconscious data manipulations. In order to have symbol grounding in
genuine awareness, I think that instead of a CPU cranking away rendering
the entire cosmos over and over as a bulwark against nothingness, I think
that the cosmos must be rooted in stasis. Silence. Solitude. This is not
nothingness however, it is everythingness. A universal inertial frame which
loses nothing but rather continuously expands within itself by taking no
action at all.

The universe doesn’t need to be racing to mechanically redraw the cosmos
over and over because what it has drawn already has no place to disappear
to. It can only seem to disappear through…
…
…
…
latency.

The universe as we know it then arises out of nested latencies. A
meta-diffraction of symmetrically juxtaposed latency-generating
methodologies. Size, scale, distance, mass, and density on the public side,
richness, depth, significance, and complexity on the private side. Through
these complications, the cosmic CPU is cast as a theoretical shadow, when
the deeper reality is that rather than zillions of cycles per second, the
real mainframe is the slowest possible computer. It can never complete even
one cycle. How can it, when it has all of these subroutines that need to
complete their cycles first?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit