maybe this will help?
Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation
arXiv:1210.1847v1 [hep-ph] 4Oct 2012
Ronald
On Oct 10, 2:22 pm, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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-...>
> >>http://www.quora.com/Physics/If-the-universe-were-a-simulation-would-...)
>
> >> 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- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--
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.
