On 28 Dec 2013, at 18:10, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Dear Bruno,

On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

On 28 Dec 2013, at 05:27, LizR wrote:

On 28 December 2013 17:23, Edgar L. Owen <edgaro...@att.net> wrote:

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

This would explain the sequencing of events aspect of time, but it does nothing to address the concurrency problem.

Nor dark matter, nor visible matter, nor ....

That is the problem I offer to you, as a result of the translation of he mind-body problem in arithmetic, enforced by the comp hypothesis.

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.

I did, and we have already discussed this. That can be used to progress, may be. If you find that it would be very nice. Right now, we need to solve much more simpler problem in logic to proceed in a way such that we keep into account the communicable/non- communicable self-referential constraints, in the way imposed by the FPI.

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.

That's physics. But physics is given by a precise equation in comp. You are free to use *any* papers and results to solve that equation. You need to study logic to make the link properly.

(Of course you can also do physics, without tackling the comp mind- body problem. That's what physicists do since a long 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to