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 [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.
