Hi Roger Clough,
On 12 Oct 2012, at 13:39, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
Not all simulations that work in Platonia can work
down here in Contingia.
I doubt this.
For example, time in
principle can flow backward up there but it can not
flow backward down here.
I have never seen a physical law which does not imply reversibility
(except the infamous wave packet collapse, which does not make sense
for me).
Even black holes evaporate, and you can retrieve information which
felt in it (that is plausible, not yet "proved" to be sure).
That's why
theories have to be tested.
All theories must be tested. OK.
Simulation would
not always actually work.
This does not seem to bode well for comp.
You fail to convince me on this.
Bruno
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
.
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.
