Dear Bruno,

On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal <> wrote:

> On 28 Dec 2013, at 05:27, LizR wrote:
> On 28 December 2013 17:23, Edgar L. Owen <> wrote:
>> Jason,
>> You might be able to theoretically simulate it but certainly not compute
>> it in real time which is what reality actually does which is my point.
>> "In real time" ?! In comp (and many TOEs) time is emergent.
> Physical times and subjective time emerge. OK. But let us be honest, comp
> assumes already a sort of time, through the natural order: à, 1, 2, 3, ...
> Then you have all UD-time step of the computations emulated by the UD:
> phi_444(6) first step
> ...
> phi_444(6) second step
> ... ...                                      (meaning greater delay in the
> UD-time steps).
> ph_444(6) third  step
> ... ... ...
> ph_444(6) fourth  step
> .... .... ... ...
> ph_444(6) fifth step
> etc.
This would explain the sequencing of events aspect of time, but it does
nothing to address the concurrency problem. We need a theory of time that
has an explanation of both sequencing and transition. I wish you could
study GR, say from Penrose's math book, and Prof. Hitoshi Kitada's Local
Time interpretation of QM.
  It gives a nice set of concepts that help solve the problem of time:
there is no such thing as a "global" time; there is only local time. Local
for each individual observer. Synchronizations of these local times
generates the appearance of global time for a collection that is co-moving
or (equivalently) have similar inertial frames.

> To take a parallel example that should be close to your heart, suppose
> you're an AI living in the matrix and it's simulating reality for you. You
> aren't aware of this but believe yourself to be say a human writer who is
> participating in an online discussion. Suppose it takes a million years to
> simulate one second of your experience. How would you know? You can only
> compare your experience of time with in-matrix clocks, which all run at the
> speed you'd expect.
> It's the same for any theory which tries to compute reality.
> But the physical time is not Turing emulable, and perhaps is not even
> existing, like in Dewitt-Wheeler equation: H = 0.

Indeed! The common idea of "physical time" is an illusion! See:

What is and What should be Time?
Hitoshi Kitada <>,
R. Fletcher <>
(Submitted on 20 Aug 1994 (v1 <>), last
revised 16 Mar 1996 (this version, v4))

The notions of time in the theories of Newton and Einstein are reviewed so
that certain of their assumptions are clarified. These assumptions will be
seen as the causes of the incompatibility between the two different ways of
understanding time, and seen to be philosophical hypotheses, rather than
purely scientific ones. The conflict between quantum mechanics and
(general) relativity is shown to be a consequence of retaining the
Newtonian conception of time in the context of quantum mechanics. As a
remedy for this conflict, an alternative definition of time -- earlier
presented in Kitada 1994a and 1994b -- is reviewed with less mathematics
and more emphasis on its philosophical aspects. Based on this revised
understanding of time it is shown that quantum mechanics and general
relativity are reconciled while preserving the current mathematical
formulations of both theories.

> if it exist, it depends on all computations "instantaneously", by the
> delay invariance of the FPI.
> Bruno
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> To post to this group, send email to
> Visit this group at
> For more options, visit


Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
To post to this group, send email to
Visit this group at
For more options, visit

Reply via email to