On 09 Oct 2012, at 19:03, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 11:04:51 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
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.
I'm not sure how that relates to what I was saying about the
universe arising before even the first tick of the clock is
finished, but we can talk about this instead if you like.
What you are saying, like what my friend up there was saying about
the CPU clock being invisible to the Sims, I have no problem with.
That's why I was saying it's like a computer game. You can stop the
game, debug the program, start it back up where you left off, and if
there was a Sim person actually experiencing that, they would not
experience any interruption. Fine.
The problem is the meanwhile you have this meta-universe which is
doing the computing, yes? What does it run on?
On the true number relations.
Indirectly on some false propositions too, as the meta-arithmetic,
involving false propositions/sentences belongs to arithmetic.
If it doesn't need to run on anything, then way not just have that
be the universe in the first place?
OK.
It is the arithmetical universe, or (I prefer) arithmetic truth. We
cannot really defined it.
You can call it God or Universe, but it is important to distinguish
from the physical reality, which is an internal emerging secondary
structure, in the comp setting.
Bruno
Craig
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/ee_vcX_1ymcJ
.
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
.
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.
