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…

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.



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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to