On 12/28/2013 4:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 05:27, LizR wrote:
On 28 December 2013 17:23, Edgar L. Owen <edgaro...@att.net <mailto:edgaro...@att.net>>
You might be able to theoretically simulate it but certainly not compute it
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
ph_444(6) third step
... ... ...
ph_444(6) fourth step
.... .... ... ...
ph_444(6) fifth step
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.
if it exist, it depends on all computations "instantaneously", by the delay invariance
of the FPI.
Which seems like a flaw in trying to recover physics from comp - but maybe not, physics
has it's own problems with time.
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 email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.