Universe on a Chip

16 views
Skip to first unread message

Craig Weinberg

unread,
Oct 8, 2012, 4:38:06 PM10/8/12
to everyth...@googlegroups.com


"If the universe were a simulation, would the constant speed of light correspond to the clock speed driving the simulation? In other words, the “CPU speed?” 

As we are “inside” the simulation, all attempts to measure the speed of the simulation appear as a constant value.

Light “executes” (what we call “movement”) at one instruction per cycle.

Any device we built to attempt to measure the speed of light is also inside the simulation, so even though the “outside” CPU clock could be changing speed, we will always see it as the same constant value.

A “cycle” is how long it takes all the information in the universe to update itself relative to each other. That is all the speed of light really is. The speed of information updating in the universe… (more here http://www.quora.com/Physics/If-the-universe-were-a-simulation-would-the-constant-speed-of-light-correspond-to-the-clock-speed-driving-the-simulation-In-other-words-the-CPU-speed?)

I can make the leap from CPU clock frequency to the speed of light in a vacuum if I view light as an experienced event or energy state which occurs local to matter rather than literally traveling through space. With this view, the correlation between distance and latency is an organizational one, governing sequence and priority of processing rather than the presumed literal existence of racing light bodies (photons).

This would be consistent with your model of Matrix-universe on a meta-universal CPU in that light speed is simply the frequency at which the computer processes raw bits. The change of light speed when propagating through matter or gravitational fields etc wouldn’t be especially consistent with this model…why would the ghost of a supernova slow down the cosmic computer in one area of memory, etc?

The model that I have been developing suggests however that the CPU model would not lead to realism or significance though, and could only generate unconscious data manipulations. In order to have symbol grounding in genuine awareness, I think that instead of a CPU cranking away rendering the entire cosmos over and over as a bulwark against nothingness, I think that the cosmos must be rooted in stasis. Silence. Solitude. This is not nothingness however, it is everythingness. A universal inertial frame which loses nothing but rather continuously expands within itself by taking no action at all.

The universe doesn’t need to be racing to mechanically redraw the cosmos over and over because what it has drawn already has no place to disappear to. It can only seem to disappear through…



latency.

The universe as we know it then arises out of nested latencies. A meta-diffraction of symmetrically juxtaposed latency-generating methodologies. Size, scale, distance, mass, and density on the public side, richness, depth, significance, and complexity on the private side. Through these complications, the cosmic CPU is cast as a theoretical shadow, when the deeper reality is that rather than zillions of cycles per second, the real mainframe is the slowest possible computer. It can never complete even one cycle. How can it, when it has all of these subroutines that need to complete their cycles first?

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Oct 9, 2012, 11:04:43 AM10/9/12
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
?

If the universe is a simulation (which it can't, by comp, but let us say), then if the computer clock is changed, the internal creatures will not see any difference. Indeed it is a way to understand that such a "time" does not need to be actualized. Like in COMP and GR.

Bruno


Craig Weinberg

unread,
Oct 9, 2012, 1:03:54 PM10/9/12
to everyth...@googlegroups.com

I'm not sure how that relates to what I was saying about the universe arising before even the first tick of the clock is finished, but we can talk about this instead if you like.

What you are saying, like what my friend up there was saying about the CPU clock being invisible to the Sims, I have no problem with. That's why I was saying it's like a computer game. You can stop the game, debug the program, start it back up where you left off, and if there was a Sim person actually experiencing that, they would not experience any interruption. Fine.

The problem is the meanwhile you have this meta-universe which is doing the computing, yes? What does it run on? If it doesn't need to run on anything, then way not just have that be the universe in the first place?

Craig

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Oct 10, 2012, 12:14:40 PM10/10/12
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On the true number relations. 

Indirectly on some false propositions too, as the meta-arithmetic, involving false propositions/sentences belongs to arithmetic.




If it doesn't need to run on anything, then way not just have that be the universe in the first place?

OK. 

It is the arithmetical universe, or (I prefer) arithmetic truth. We cannot really defined it. 

You can call it God or Universe, but it is important to distinguish from the physical reality, which is an internal emerging secondary structure, in the comp setting.

Bruno


Craig

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/ee_vcX_1ymcJ.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.


Craig Weinberg

unread,
Oct 10, 2012, 2:22:33 PM10/10/12
to everyth...@googlegroups.com


On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 12:14:44 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 09 Oct 2012, at 19:03, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 11:04:51 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 08 Oct 2012, at 22:38, Craig Weinberg wrote:


"If the universe were a simulation, would the constant speed of light correspond to the clock speed driving the simulation? In other words, the “CPU speed?” 

As we are “inside” the simulation, all attempts to measure the speed of the simulation appear as a constant value.

Light “executes” (what we call “movement”) at one instruction per cycle.

Any device we built to attempt to measure the speed of light is also inside the simulation, so even though the “outside” CPU clock could be changing speed, we will always see it as the same constant value.

A “cycle” is how long it takes all the information in the universe to update itself relative to each other. That is all the speed of light really is. The speed of information updating in the universe… (more here http://www.quora.com/Physics/If-the-universe-were-a-simulation-would-the-constant-speed-of-light-correspond-to-the-clock-speed-driving-the-simulation-In-other-words-the-CPU-speed?)

I can make the leap from CPU clock frequency to the speed of light in a vacuum if I view light as an experienced event or energy state which occurs local to matter rather than literally traveling through space. With this view, the correlation between distance and latency is an organizational one, governing sequence and priority of processing rather than the presumed literal existence of racing light bodies (photons).

This would be consistent with your model of Matrix-universe on a meta-universal CPU in that light speed is simply the frequency at which the computer processes raw bits. The change of light speed when propagating through matter or gravitational fields etc wouldn’t be especially consistent with this model…why would the ghost of a supernova slow down the cosmic computer in one area of memory, etc?

The model that I have been developing suggests however that the CPU model would not lead to realism or significance though, and could only generate unconscious data manipulations. In order to have symbol grounding in genuine awareness, I think that instead of a CPU cranking away rendering the entire cosmos over and over as a bulwark against nothingness, I think that the cosmos must be rooted in stasis. Silence. Solitude. This is not nothingness however, it is everythingness. A universal inertial frame which loses nothing but rather continuously expands within itself by taking no action at all.

The universe doesn’t need to be racing to mechanically redraw the cosmos over and over because what it has drawn already has no place to disappear to. It can only seem to disappear through…



latency.

The universe as we know it then arises out of nested latencies. A meta-diffraction of symmetrically juxtaposed latency-generating methodologies. Size, scale, distance, mass, and density on the public side, richness, depth, significance, and complexity on the private side. Through these complications, the cosmic CPU is cast as a theoretical shadow, when the deeper reality is that rather than zillions of cycles per second, the real mainframe is the slowest possible computer. It can never complete even one cycle. How can it, when it has all of these subroutines that need to complete their cycles first?

?

If the universe is a simulation (which it can't, by comp, but let us say), then if the computer clock is changed, the internal creatures will not see any difference. Indeed it is a way to understand that such a "time" does not need to be actualized. Like in COMP and GR.


I'm not sure how that relates to what I was saying about the universe arising before even the first tick of the clock is finished, but we can talk about this instead if you like.

What you are saying, like what my friend up there was saying about the CPU clock being invisible to the Sims, I have no problem with. That's why I was saying it's like a computer game. You can stop the game, debug the program, start it back up where you left off, and if there was a Sim person actually experiencing that, they would not experience any interruption. Fine.

The problem is the meanwhile you have this meta-universe which is doing the computing, yes? What does it run on?

On the true number relations. 

Indirectly on some false propositions too, as the meta-arithmetic, involving false propositions/sentences belongs to arithmetic.

Right, so the number relations don't require any meta-computation. Why then do their progeny require number-relations?
 




If it doesn't need to run on anything, then way not just have that be the universe in the first place?

OK. 

It is the arithmetical universe, or (I prefer) arithmetic truth. We cannot really defined it. 

You can call it God or Universe, but it is important to distinguish from the physical reality, which is an internal emerging secondary structure, in the comp setting.

I am ok with secondary structure, and I think the same thing only that it has to be that structure is secondary to sense (the capacity to experience + the capacity to partially experience) rather than arithmetic, because I can see why it would serve sense to invent numbers to help keep track of things but I can't see why keeping-track-ness would bother to create experience.

Craig

Bruno

ronaldheld

unread,
Oct 11, 2012, 8:19:27 AM10/11/12
to Everything List
maybe this will help?
Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation
arXiv:1210.1847v1 [hep-ph] 4Oct 2012
Ronald


On Oct 10, 2:22 pm, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 12:14:44 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> > On 09 Oct 2012, at 19:03, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 11:04:51 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> >> On 08 Oct 2012, at 22:38, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> >>>   "If the universe were a simulation, would the constant speed of light
> >> correspond to the clock speed driving the simulation? In other words, the
> >> “CPU speed?”
>
> >> As we are “inside” the simulation, all attempts to measure the speed of
> >> the simulation appear as a constant value.
>
> >> Light “executes” (what we call “movement”) at one instruction per cycle.
>
> >> Any device we built to attempt to measure the speed of light is also
> >> inside the simulation, so even though the “outside” CPU clock could be
> >> changing speed, we will always see it as the same constant value.
>
> >> A “cycle” is how long it takes all the information in the universe to
> >> update itself relative to each other. That is all the speed of light really
> >> is. The speed of information updating in the universe… (more here<http://www.quora.com/Physics/If-the-universe-were-a-simulation-would-...>
> >>http://www.quora.com/Physics/If-the-universe-were-a-simulation-would-...)
> > Bruno- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Oct 11, 2012, 11:08:04 AM10/11/12
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 10 Oct 2012, at 20:22, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 12:14:44 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 09 Oct 2012, at 19:03, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 11:04:51 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 08 Oct 2012, at 22:38, Craig Weinberg wrote:


"If the universe were a simulation, would the constant speed of light correspond to the clock speed driving the simulation? In other words, the “CPU speed?” 

As we are “inside” the simulation, all attempts to measure the speed of the simulation appear as a constant value.

Light “executes” (what we call “movement”) at one instruction per cycle.

Any device we built to attempt to measure the speed of light is also inside the simulation, so even though the “outside” CPU clock could be changing speed, we will always see it as the same constant value.

A “cycle” is how long it takes all the information in the universe to update itself relative to each other. That is all the speed of light really is. The speed of information updating in the universe… (more here http://www.quora.com/Physics/If-the-universe-were-a-simulation-would-the-constant-speed-of-light-correspond-to-the-clock-speed-driving-the-simulation-In-other-words-the-CPU-speed?)

I can make the leap from CPU clock frequency to the speed of light in a vacuum if I view light as an experienced event or energy state which occurs local to matter rather than literally traveling through space. With this view, the correlation between distance and latency is an organizational one, governing sequence and priority of processing rather than the presumed literal existence of racing light bodies (photons).

This would be consistent with your model of Matrix-universe on a meta-universal CPU in that light speed is simply the frequency at which the computer processes raw bits. The change of light speed when propagating through matter or gravitational fields etc wouldn’t be especially consistent with this model…why would the ghost of a supernova slow down the cosmic computer in one area of memory, etc?

The model that I have been developing suggests however that the CPU model would not lead to realism or significance though, and could only generate unconscious data manipulations. In order to have symbol grounding in genuine awareness, I think that instead of a CPU cranking away rendering the entire cosmos over and over as a bulwark against nothingness, I think that the cosmos must be rooted in stasis. Silence. Solitude. This is not nothingness however, it is everythingness. A universal inertial frame which loses nothing but rather continuously expands within itself by taking no action at all.

The universe doesn’t need to be racing to mechanically redraw the cosmos over and over because what it has drawn already has no place to disappear to. It can only seem to disappear through…



latency.

The universe as we know it then arises out of nested latencies. A meta-diffraction of symmetrically juxtaposed latency-generating methodologies. Size, scale, distance, mass, and density on the public side, richness, depth, significance, and complexity on the private side. Through these complications, the cosmic CPU is cast as a theoretical shadow, when the deeper reality is that rather than zillions of cycles per second, the real mainframe is the slowest possible computer. It can never complete even one cycle. How can it, when it has all of these subroutines that need to complete their cycles first?

?

If the universe is a simulation (which it can't, by comp, but let us say), then if the computer clock is changed, the internal creatures will not see any difference. Indeed it is a way to understand that such a "time" does not need to be actualized. Like in COMP and GR.


I'm not sure how that relates to what I was saying about the universe arising before even the first tick of the clock is finished, but we can talk about this instead if you like.

What you are saying, like what my friend up there was saying about the CPU clock being invisible to the Sims, I have no problem with. That's why I was saying it's like a computer game. You can stop the game, debug the program, start it back up where you left off, and if there was a Sim person actually experiencing that, they would not experience any interruption. Fine.

The problem is the meanwhile you have this meta-universe which is doing the computing, yes? What does it run on?

On the true number relations. 

Indirectly on some false propositions too, as the meta-arithmetic, involving false propositions/sentences belongs to arithmetic.

Right, so the number relations don't require any meta-computation. Why then do their progeny require number-relations?

?

To see movies, or to chat on the net perhaps. 

Your question is a bit like why do Saturn needs rings?




 




If it doesn't need to run on anything, then way not just have that be the universe in the first place?

OK. 

It is the arithmetical universe, or (I prefer) arithmetic truth. We cannot really defined it. 

You can call it God or Universe, but it is important to distinguish from the physical reality, which is an internal emerging secondary structure, in the comp setting.

I am ok with secondary structure, and I think the same thing only that it has to be that structure is secondary to sense (the capacity to experience + the capacity to partially experience) rather than arithmetic, because I can see why it would serve sense to invent numbers to help keep track of things but I can't see why keeping-track-ness would bother to create experience.

Why not? It makes sense when the keeping-track-ness is done self-referentially by the keeper tracker, in some environment, at some level of description of itself. The study of the brain suggests such self-represention, and computer science can study fixed point of such self-representation, and they have, even when super-simplified,  a rich, un-bound-able mathematical complexity. 

Why are you sure they can't have experience? They might disagree with you. And somehow, using the most classical logic of knowledge, they already disagree. Why not listen to them?

Many people argue against comp, up to the point they believe that they don't have to study a bit of computer science. But you would study computer science, you might perhaps find more deep argument against comp, instead of begging the question by confusing the person (existing somehow with comp, and rather well described for the case of simple Löbian machine) with the crunching numbers machine physically conceived.

You defend a reductionist conception on numbers that the existence of the universal numbers already refute. And the Löbian numbers already know that (meaning:  the person associated to such numbers know that relatively to its most probable universal environment/computation/dream).

Bruno




Craig Weinberg

unread,
Oct 11, 2012, 12:56:25 PM10/11/12
to everyth...@googlegroups.com


On Thursday, October 11, 2012 11:08:16 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:



The problem is the meanwhile you have this meta-universe which is doing the computing, yes? What does it run on?

On the true number relations. 

Indirectly on some false propositions too, as the meta-arithmetic, involving false propositions/sentences belongs to arithmetic.

Right, so the number relations don't require any meta-computation. Why then do their progeny require number-relations?

?

To see movies, or to chat on the net perhaps. 

If they already have the capacity to want to see movies or have experiences of any kind, then it begs the question of consciousness. They are already conscious.

This is my main problem with what I understand of your view. Like Dennett, you seem to be saying "It [Some process which is pre-loaded with confirmation bias] thinks, therefore it thinks that it *is*" I gather from talking to you over these months (years?) that you have discovered the precise method, more or less, through which arithmetic process can and must dream this self-confirmation bias into its functionality - which, if that's the case, I do not dispute. I don't have a problem with a theoretical modeling of self-confirmation as prerequisite for certain classes of computation (UMs and LUMs - which, in my mind, the only difference is that the LUMs are the more promiscuously surrealistic of the two...having more whobytes than howbytes).

My problem has always been that there is no 'there' there. We arbitrarily start with elemental propositions which are perfect for describing recursively enumerable public operations, but really have no justification for their primacy other than their own confirmation bias of themselves. Numbers add up perfectly, therefore itching and laughing and water-skiing in the blue Aegean. There's just no sense there - it's all taken for granted a priori and then claimed as the trophy of proof at the end. Yes, a lot of things can be reduced to numbers - a lot of things can be reduced to yin/yang or good/evil also.

Craig


Your question is a bit like why do Saturn needs rings?

It's more like 'why does putting a computer in a building make that building any taller'?
 




 




If it doesn't need to run on anything, then way not just have that be the universe in the first place?

OK. 

It is the arithmetical universe, or (I prefer) arithmetic truth. We cannot really defined it. 

You can call it God or Universe, but it is important to distinguish from the physical reality, which is an internal emerging secondary structure, in the comp setting.

I am ok with secondary structure, and I think the same thing only that it has to be that structure is secondary to sense (the capacity to experience + the capacity to partially experience) rather than arithmetic, because I can see why it would serve sense to invent numbers to help keep track of things but I can't see why keeping-track-ness would bother to create experience.

Why not? It makes sense when the keeping-track-ness is done self-referentially by the keeper tracker, in some environment, at some level of description of itself. The study of the brain suggests such self-represention, and computer science can study fixed point of such self-representation, and they have, even when super-simplified,  a rich, un-bound-able mathematical complexity. 

You can have complexity and self-representation without experience though. What does experience add to the task of keeping track?


Why are you sure they can't have experience? They might disagree with you. And somehow, using the most classical logic of knowledge, they already disagree. Why not listen to them?

Because there isn't any such thing as experience until it makes sense for something to have it. It only makes sense for us to have it because we cannot escape the fact that we do. That isn't true for other things though. Just as much as I know that I have experience, I know that Bugs Bunny and Pinocchio do not have experiences. I know that I can read Chinese well enough to know that it is probably Chinese, but not enough to know much about what it is intended to mean. I also understand that my body is a living organism growing from a single dividing cell out if it's own motives and sense. By the same token I understand that a computer is an assembly of inorganic parts selected specifically for accountability and fidelity of imitation. I know that machines and computers are known the world over to be inert, empty, devoid of feeling or comfort or personhood. Why not listen to these clues? Why not see the relative stagnation in 60 years of AI research as a sign that there is no gold in this electronic lead?
 

Many people argue against comp, up to the point they believe that they don't have to study a bit of computer science. But you would study computer science, you might perhaps find more deep argument against comp, instead of begging the question by confusing the person (existing somehow with comp, and rather well described for the case of simple Löbian machine) with the crunching numbers machine physically conceived.

You defend a reductionist conception on numbers that the existence of the universal numbers already refute. And the Löbian numbers already know that (meaning:  the person associated to such numbers know that relatively to its most probable universal environment/computation/dream).

The reflexivity of numbers does not surprise me. All channels of sense are self-fulfilling to some extent. Any angle on the cosmos reveals a picture which can be extended to some degree of truth revelation. Numbers are a particularly universal class of sense, which makes them especially inappropriate to have anything to do with consciousness, which is the essence of non-universality.

What I don't understand is that you interpret Godel as saying that there is no limit to arithmetic truth, whereas I think most people interpret his incompleteness as meaning that arithmetic fails to live up to it's own standards. It's sense ultimately doesn't even make sense to itself and needs to supervene on some other layer of sensemaking, always.

Craig

Roger Clough

unread,
Oct 12, 2012, 7:39:06 AM10/12/12
to everything-list
Hi Bruno Marchal

Not all simulations that work in Platonia can work
down here in Contingia. For example, time in
principle can flow backward up there but it can not
flow backward down here.That's why
theories have to be tested. Simulation would
not always actually work.

This does not seem to bode well for comp.


Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net
10/12/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen


----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-11, 11:08:04
Subject: Re: Universe on a Chip




On 10 Oct 2012, at 20:22, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 12:14:44 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 09 Oct 2012, at 19:03, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 11:04:51 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 08 Oct 2012, at 22:38, Craig Weinberg wrote:




"If the universe were a simulation, would the constant speed of light correspond to the clock speed driving the simulation? In other words, the ?PU speed??
As we are ?nside? the simulation, all attempts to measure the speed of the simulation appear as a constant value.

Light ?xecutes? (what we call ?ovement?) at one instruction per cycle.

Any device we built to attempt to measure the speed of light is also inside the simulation, so even though the ?utside? CPU clock could be changing speed, we will always see it as the same constant value.

A ?ycle? is how long it takes all the information in the universe to update itself relative to each other. That is all the speed of light really is. The speed of information updating in the universe? (more here http://www.quora.com/Physics/If-the-universe-were-a-simulation-would-the-constant-speed-of-light-correspond-to-the-clock-speed-driving-the-simulation-In-other-words-the-CPU-speed?)
I can make the leap from CPU clock frequency to the speed of light in a vacuum if I view light as an experienced event or energy state which occurs local to matter rather than literally traveling through space. With this view, the correlation between distance and latency is an organizational one, governing sequence and priority of processing rather than the presumed literal existence of racing light bodies (photons).

This would be consistent with your model of Matrix-universe on a meta-universal CPU in that light speed is simply the frequency at which the computer processes raw bits. The change of light speed when propagating through matter or gravitational fields etc wouldn? be especially consistent with this model?hy would the ghost of a supernova slow down the cosmic computer in one area of memory, etc?

The model that I have been developing suggests however that the CPU model would not lead to realism or significance though, and could only generate unconscious data manipulations. In order to have symbol grounding in genuine awareness, I think that instead of a CPU cranking away rendering the entire cosmos over and over as a bulwark against nothingness, I think that the cosmos must be rooted in stasis. Silence. Solitude. This is not nothingness however, it is everythingness. A universal inertial frame which loses nothing but rather continuously expands within itself by taking no action at all.

The universe doesn? need to be racing to mechanically redraw the cosmos over and over because what it has drawn already has no place to disappear to. It can only seem to disappear through?
?
?
?
latency.

The universe as we know it then arises out of nested latencies. A meta-diffraction of symmetrically juxtaposed latency-generating methodologies. Size, scale, distance, mass, and density on the public side, richness, depth, significance, and complexity on the private side. Through these complications, the cosmic CPU is cast as a theoretical shadow, when the deeper reality is that rather than zillions of cycles per second, the real mainframe is the slowest possible computer. It can never complete even one cycle. How can it, when it has all of these subroutines that need to complete their cycles first?
?


If the universe is a simulation (which it can't, by comp, but let us say), then if the computer clock is changed, the internal creatures will not see any difference. Indeed it is a way to understand that such a "time" does not need to be actualized. Like in COMP and GR.



I'm not sure how that relates to what I was saying about the universe arising before even the first tick of the clock is finished, but we can talk about this instead if you like.

What you are saying, like what my friend up there was saying about the CPU clock being invisible to the Sims, I have no problem with. That's why I was saying it's like a computer game. You can stop the game, debug the program, start it back up where you left off, and if there was a Sim person actually experiencing that, they would not experience any interruption. Fine.

The problem is the meanwhile you have this meta-universe which is doing the computing, yes? What does it run on?


On the true number relations.


Indirectly on some false propositions too, as the meta-arithmetic, involving false propositions/sentences belongs to arithmetic.

Right, so the number relations don't require any meta-computation. Why then do their progeny require number-relations?



?


To see movies, or to chat on the net perhaps.


Your question is a bit like why do Saturn needs rings?


















If it doesn't need to run on anything, then way not just have that be the universe in the first place?



OK.


It is the arithmetical universe, or (I prefer) arithmetic truth. We cannot really defined it.


You can call it God or Universe, but it is important to distinguish from the physical reality, which is an internal emerging secondary structure, in the comp setting.

I am ok with secondary structure, and I think the same thing only that it has to be that structure is secondary to sense (the capacity to experience + the capacity to partially experience) rather than arithmetic, because I can see why it would serve sense to invent numbers to help keep track of things but I can't see why keeping-track-ness would bother to create experience.


Why not? It makes sense when the keeping-track-ness is done self-referentially by the keeper tracker, in some environment, at some level of description of itself. The study of the brain suggests such self-represention, and computer science can study fixed point of such self-representation, and they have, even when super-simplified, a rich, un-bound-able mathematical complexity.


Why are you sure they can't have experience? They might disagree with you. And somehow, using the most classical logic of knowledge, they already disagree. Why not listen to them?


Many people argue against comp, up to the point they believe that they don't have to study a bit of computer science. But you would study computer science, you might perhaps find more deep argument against comp, instead of begging the question by confusing the person (existing somehow with comp, and rather well described for the case of simple L?ian machine) with the crunching numbers machine physically conceived.


You defend a reductionist conception on numbers that the existence of the universal numbers already refute. And the L?ian numbers already know that (meaning: the person associated to such numbers know that relatively to its most probable universal environment/computation/dream).


Bruno






http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

Richard Ruquist

unread,
Oct 12, 2012, 7:45:19 AM10/12/12
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On the contrary Roger, Feynman had to allow time to flow backwards for
some particles in order to complete his Quantum ElectroDynamics QED
theory.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.

Roger Clough

unread,
Oct 12, 2012, 8:37:10 AM10/12/12
to everything-list
Hi Richard Ruquist

OK. If Feynman said it, it's got to be right. Now I recall that
theoretically it has to be that time can locally flow backwards,
for growing life has to reverse entropy into energy to produce
cellular structure.

So Brian Greene was wrong, time in some special cases can
locally flow backwards.


Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net
10/12/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen


----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Richard Ruquist
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-12, 07:45:19
Subject: Re: Simulation and comp


On the contrary Roger, Feynman had to allow time to flow backwards for
some particles in order to complete his Quantum ElectroDynamics QED
theory.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Oct 12, 2012, 10:02:08 AM10/12/12
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
Hi Roger Clough,

On 12 Oct 2012, at 13:39, Roger Clough wrote:

> Hi Bruno Marchal
>
> Not all simulations that work in Platonia can work
> down here in Contingia.

I doubt this.



> For example, time in
> principle can flow backward up there but it can not
> flow backward down here.

I have never seen a physical law which does not imply reversibility
(except the infamous wave packet collapse, which does not make sense
for me).
Even black holes evaporate, and you can retrieve information which
felt in it (that is plausible, not yet "proved" to be sure).



> That's why
> theories have to be tested.

All theories must be tested. OK.


> Simulation would
> not always actually work.
>
> This does not seem to bode well for comp.

You fail to convince me on this.
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Everything List" group.

Richard Ruquist

unread,
Oct 12, 2012, 10:33:16 AM10/12/12
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
Roger,
Brian for sure knows and understands Feynman's QED.
He could not get that wrong. You probably misunderstood him.
Richard

Roger Clough

unread,
Oct 12, 2012, 12:34:43 PM10/12/12
to everything-list
ROGER:

> Hi Bruno Marchal
>
> Not all simulations that work in Platonia can work
> down here in Contingia.

BRUNO: I doubt this.

ROGER: Things do not change in Platonia but they do on earth.

>(previously) For example, time in
> principle can flow backward up there but it can not
> flow backward down here.

BRUNO: I have never seen a physical law which does not imply reversibility
(except the infamous wave packet collapse, which does not make sense
for me).
Even black holes evaporate, and you can retrieve information which
felt in it (that is plausible, not yet "proved" to be sure).

ROGER: I think time is reversible in most physical theories.
But a baseball does not return to the bat after a home run is hit.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages