# Re: Universe on a Chip

```
On 10 Oct 2012, at 20:22, Craig Weinberg 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-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?
```
?

To see movies, or to chat on the net perhaps.

Your question is a bit like why do Saturn needs rings?

```
```

```
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.
```
```
Why not? It makes sense when the keeping-track-ness is done self- referentially by the keeper tracker, in some environment, at some level of description of itself. The study of the brain suggests such self-represention, and computer science can study fixed point of such self-representation, and they have, even when super-simplified, a rich, un-bound-able mathematical complexity.
```
```
Why are you sure they can't have experience? They might disagree with you. And somehow, using the most classical logic of knowledge, they already disagree. Why not listen to them?
```
```
Many people argue against comp, up to the point they believe that they don't have to study a bit of computer science. But you would study computer science, you might perhaps find more deep argument against comp, instead of begging the question by confusing the person (existing somehow with comp, and rather well described for the case of simple Löbian machine) with the crunching numbers machine physically conceived.
```
```
You defend a reductionist conception on numbers that the existence of the universal numbers already refute. And the Löbian numbers already know that (meaning: the person associated to such numbers know that relatively to its most probable universal environment/computation/ dream).
```
Bruno

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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to