Roger,
Brian for sure knows and understands Feynman's QED.
He could not get that wrong. You probably misunderstood him.
Richard

On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 8:37 AM, Roger Clough <rclo...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Hi Richard Ruquist
>
> OK. If Feynman said it, it's got to be right. Now I recall that
> theoretically it has to be that time can locally flow backwards,
> for growing life has to reverse entropy into energy to produce
> cellular structure.
>
> So Brian Greene was wrong, time in some special cases can
> locally flow backwards.
>
>
> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
> 10/12/2012
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>
>
> ----- Receiving the following content -----
> From: Richard Ruquist
> Receiver: everything-list
> Time: 2012-10-12, 07:45:19
> Subject: Re: Simulation and comp
>
>
> 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  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.
>
> --
> 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