# Re: Universe on a Chip

```
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
>
> 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