On the contrary Roger, Feynman had to allow time to flow backwards for
some particles in order to complete his Quantum ElectroDynamics QED
theory.

On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 7:39 AM, Roger Clough <rclo...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Hi Bruno Marchal
>
> Not all simulations that work in Platonia can work
> down here in Contingia. For example, time in
> principle can flow backward up there but it can not
> flow backward down here.That's why
> theories have to be tested. Simulation would
> not always actually work.
>
> This does not seem to bode well for comp.
>
>
> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
> 10/12/2012
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>
>
> ----- Receiving the following content -----
> From: Bruno Marchal
> Receiver: everything-list
> Time: 2012-10-11, 11:08:04
> Subject: 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 ?PU 
> speed??
> As we are ?nside? the simulation, all attempts to measure the speed of the 
> simulation appear as a constant value.
>
> Light ?xecutes? (what we call ?ovement?) 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 ?utside? CPU clock could be changing 
> speed, we will always see it as the same constant value.
>
> A ?ycle? 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? be especially consistent 
> with this model?hy 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? 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 L?ian 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 L?ian 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 
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at 
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to