Terren,

You are right "reality processors don't work like that". My theory attempts 
to address reality as it is, not as it hypothetically might or could be. 

Edgar


On Monday, January 13, 2014 9:39:03 PM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
> Edgar, I'll give you another chance to answer my question. I know, I know, 
> I'm so generous.
>
> You say P-time corresponds to the "reality processors" and clock time 
> emerges from those calculations. 
>
> Imagine that you now insert a dummy operation in between every cycle of 
> the fundamental processor(s), so that the clock time that is computed 
> corresponds with twice as many computations. Do the inhabitants of the 
> universe notice a difference?  Does time "run slower"?  
>
> Imagine instead that you halted the computation of reality for a while, by 
> for instance inserting 10^10^10 dummy operations. Would the inhabitants of 
> the universe notice that reality has paused?
>
> If the answers to those questions are "no", then you cannot use the 
> phenomenal experience of the "present moment" as evidence, at all, for 
> P-time. 
>
> This is well covered in the UDA by the way. 
>
> I know, you're going to object that "reality processors" don't work like 
> that, that you can't insert dummy operations, and so forth. But so long as 
> the computations you are positing as fundamental to the processing of 
> reality are Turing complete, then such a move is possible, for the sake of 
> argument. 
>
> Terren
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 8:55 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net<javascript:>
> > wrote:
>
>> Liz,
>>
>> There is no FTL because this is not a physical dimensional space, it's a 
>> computational space. The notion of 'together' is computational interaction 
>> rather than dimensional co-location.
>>
>> Clock time doesn't produce the processor cycles because clock times are 
>> computed by those cycles. Only a separate Present moment P-time can provide 
>> processor cycles that clock time can be computed within.
>>
>> Edgar
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, January 13, 2014 8:36:31 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>>
>>> On 14 January 2014 14:15, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Liz,
>>>>
>>>> Good question which I've given a lot of thought to and which is still 
>>>> not completely clear in my mind...
>>>>
>>>> The processors are not separate physical entities processing the data 
>>>> and they are not separated from the data (the information).
>>>>
>>>
>>> They aren't physical entities at all, according to what you've said 
>>> previously. I would imagine they're best described as abstract entities.
>>>  
>>>
>>>>  So far as I can see all actual information has to include both 
>>>> applicable code and data in a single evolving information structure. That 
>>>> seems to me the only way the processor, code and data states can always be 
>>>> together where the computations actually occur. They probably occur only 
>>>> at 
>>>> the most elemental level so there have to be googles of these elemental 
>>>> computations taking place in every processor cycle.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, code and data can be the same thing, for example in Lisp. Given 
>>> googles of these processors interacting only with their closest neighbours, 
>>> as I assume they must if no influences are to travel FTL, then you do have 
>>> something at least somewhat analogous to the Game of Life. The next logical 
>>> question is what is an elemental computation?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> So the actual picture is more like computationally evolving information 
>>>> rather than the PC model of code strings passing through silicon 
>>>> processors 
>>>> sequentially accessing data as needed. All the information that makes up 
>>>> the universe has to include its own applicable (and likely pretty simple) 
>>>> rules of evolution as it interacts with other information.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So perhaps you have something like a Turing machine here. A state table 
>>> and input/output data. (With the possible proviso that the state table can 
>>> be rewritten?)
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Since all information exists only in the present moment processor cycle 
>>>> there cannot be any information code sequences that are waiting to be 
>>>> processed (as there are in silicon code). Because they would correspond to 
>>>> a pre-determined future. Everything has to be re-computed in the current 
>>>> p-time cycle. Anything that is not re-computed is left behind in the past 
>>>> and thus ceases to exist.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, in a normal computer (von Neumann type) on any given clock cycle 
>>> there is a processor state, and in a sense that's all there is (there are 
>>> also signals on the I/O ports and external patterns of data, such as the 
>>> current state of the memory and the hard drive, and any other items that 
>>> are connected to the processor, but these are all "latent" in a sense - the 
>>> processor is only aware of its own state),
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thus it is not information data states waiting to be computed by 
>>>> strings of pre-existing code sequences. That doesn't work because when 
>>>> multiple code sequences predicting a local future interact there would 
>>>> inevitably be inconsistencies and the computations would fall apart. Not 
>>>> sure if this is clear or not.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It sounds as though there are no programmes. There are only data states. 
>>> Sorry to keep saying this but it does sound like a version of the Game of 
>>> Life (although presumably a far more advanced one than Conway imagined). 
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thus everything that exists is in a continual state of re-computation 
>>>> in every processor cycle. What exists is the active evolution of all 
>>>> information, not sequential static data states one after the other.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Presmably all the information involved can be represented digitally? If 
>>> so, then it can only take on certain values - a single processor would 
>>> perhaps be storing a particular number on a given clock cycle. The limiting 
>>> case would be a single bit - which is what happens in the Game of Life. 
>>> More likely, if the processors are going to output the universe, they would 
>>> have to store larger value, but one of a finite range of values.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure I see how the "active evolution" differs from "sequential 
>>> data states", given that the computations are synchronised by a universal 
>>> clock.
>>>
>>>
>>>   -- 
>> 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-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>
>> .
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>
>

-- 
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