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 <[email protected]> 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, [email protected] > 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 [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. > -- 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.
