- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: Georges Quenot <Georges.Quenot.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 17:32:05 +0100

I start from a part of this post from David Barrett-Lennard (Mon,

3 Nov 2003 19:48:49) but I could probably hev selected several

similar other ones:

*> Given the "source code" for the simulation of our universe, it would
*

*> seem to be possible to add some extra instructions that test for a
*

*> certain condition to be met in order to tamper with the simulation.
*

*> It would seem likely that there will exist simulations that match our
*

*> own up to a certain point in time, but then diverge. Eg it is
*

*> possible for a simulation to have a rule that an object will suddenly
*

*> manifestitself at a particular time and place. The simulated conscious
*

*> beings in such a universe would be surprised to find that induction
*

*> fails at the moment the simulation diverges.
*

It seems to me that there is a very strong assupmtion here which

is that there should be some synchronicity between the "time" in the

postulated computer into which the universe would be simulated and

the time inside that simulated universe (as this is typically the

case when an electronic device is simulated).

But such an assumption not only does not seem necessary in any way

but it also does not seem possibly consistent (or it would be very

arbitrary at least) with a universe like ours for what we know of

the implications of general relativity (it does not seem possible

to define any global time in any consistent way in our universe).

Many other way of simulating the universe could be considered like

for instance a 4D mesh (if we simplify by considering only general

relativity; there is no reason for the approach not being possible in

an even more general way) representing a universe taken as a whole

in its spatio-temporal aspect. The mesh would be refined at each

iteration. The relation between the time in the computer and the time

in the universe would not be a synchrony but a refinement of the

resolution of the time (and space) in the simulated universe as the

time in the computer increases.

Alternatively (though both views are not necessarily exclusive), one

could use a variational formulation instead of a partial derivative

formulation in order to describe/build the universe leading again to

a construction in which the time in the computer is not related at

all to the time in the simulated universe.

It seems to me finally that the simulations in which there is a

synchrony between the time in this universe and the time in the

computer simulating it are very specific (if even existing) among

all other possible simulations of the same universe (at least

for the kind of relativistic universe we live in). I would even

conjecture that the measure of the set of synchronous simulations

is null within the set of all possible simulations of a given (not

so trivial) universe (if one can give a sound sense to this).

I would be interested in reading the opinions of the participants

about that point and about the sense that could be given to the

question of what "happens" (in the simulated universe) in any non-

synchronous simulation "when" the simulation diverges ?

Georges.

Received on Tue Jan 06 2004 - 11:34:34 PST

Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 17:32:05 +0100

I start from a part of this post from David Barrett-Lennard (Mon,

3 Nov 2003 19:48:49) but I could probably hev selected several

similar other ones:

It seems to me that there is a very strong assupmtion here which

is that there should be some synchronicity between the "time" in the

postulated computer into which the universe would be simulated and

the time inside that simulated universe (as this is typically the

case when an electronic device is simulated).

But such an assumption not only does not seem necessary in any way

but it also does not seem possibly consistent (or it would be very

arbitrary at least) with a universe like ours for what we know of

the implications of general relativity (it does not seem possible

to define any global time in any consistent way in our universe).

Many other way of simulating the universe could be considered like

for instance a 4D mesh (if we simplify by considering only general

relativity; there is no reason for the approach not being possible in

an even more general way) representing a universe taken as a whole

in its spatio-temporal aspect. The mesh would be refined at each

iteration. The relation between the time in the computer and the time

in the universe would not be a synchrony but a refinement of the

resolution of the time (and space) in the simulated universe as the

time in the computer increases.

Alternatively (though both views are not necessarily exclusive), one

could use a variational formulation instead of a partial derivative

formulation in order to describe/build the universe leading again to

a construction in which the time in the computer is not related at

all to the time in the simulated universe.

It seems to me finally that the simulations in which there is a

synchrony between the time in this universe and the time in the

computer simulating it are very specific (if even existing) among

all other possible simulations of the same universe (at least

for the kind of relativistic universe we live in). I would even

conjecture that the measure of the set of synchronous simulations

is null within the set of all possible simulations of a given (not

so trivial) universe (if one can give a sound sense to this).

I would be interested in reading the opinions of the participants

about that point and about the sense that could be given to the

question of what "happens" (in the simulated universe) in any non-

synchronous simulation "when" the simulation diverges ?

Georges.

Received on Tue Jan 06 2004 - 11:34:34 PST

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:09 PST
*