On 08 Oct 2012, at 22:38, Craig Weinberg wrote:
"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?)
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?
?
If the universe is a simulation (which it can't, by comp, but let us
say), then if the computer clock is changed, the internal creatures
will not see any difference. Indeed it is a way to understand that
such a "time" does not need to be actualized. Like in COMP and GR.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
