On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 12:14:44 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > 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?__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? >> >> ? >> >> 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. >
Right, so the number relations don't require any meta-computation. Why then do their progeny require number-relations? > > > > > 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. > I am ok with secondary structure, and I think the same thing only that it has to be that structure is secondary to sense (the capacity to experience + the capacity to partially experience) rather than arithmetic, because I can see why it would serve sense to invent numbers to help keep track of things but I can't see why keeping-track-ness would bother to create experience. Craig > > Bruno > -- 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/-/ky6evSOBwfkJ. To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.