OK, good luck to you. I'm tapping out of this. I have literal tolerance for someone who has a big important theory but won't answer direct questions about it (and not just mine, clearly).
T On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:52 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 [email protected]. >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> >>> 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 [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
