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