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:
Jason,
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
etc.
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)
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
