Re: Is the universe computable?

From: Erick Krist <>
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 17:24:25 -0500

> 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 ?

I would expect that the situation would expand or inflate.
My general conjecture of time as a relative [temporant] instantiative
universal [state] constant is such that time is a singular relative
universal now instance, by which on one hand we have the physical time
constraints of the behaviours of matters in time space, and on the other
hand, we have the theory of motions, speed, light, 'measurable movements' /
instants of 'self' within time.

Therefor, time is a universal constraint by which all matter now exists
within one singular [temporal] continuum of advancement by which only
relative internal state of [co] localized time based behaviours can be
established. The universe, while highly difficult to define spatially on an
infinite basis, can be explained quite sufficiently time wise in terms of a
temporant continual infinite, in which by infinite is actually the
cumulative maximum sum of 'time' avaliable in the universe by which motion,
from the atomic level to the intergalactic level may occur within that
temporal now instance of being within 'this' universe. Therefor the entire
set of ratios of fixed temporal movements and maximum time sums would hold
as a fixed constraint network by which then the rationalizations of the
universe are defined. as opposed to looking for fixed spatial boundaries or
outer limits of matter based existence, one can suppose instead the fixed
temporant relation of all matter based particles by sum constraint constants
of [maximum] time [avaliability now] therefor the function of universal
boundary becoms instead a maximum probable set constituent of things going
be, or the 'futures' of temporant [interactive dynamic] interactions between
'fixed instants' of absolute now moments, by which then the 'set state' of
more+ probable instants are likely to occur. This function is highly
illogical, not due to some highly inpredicatble nature, but due to the
innability of applying formal logic to the probable predictions of future
event states of time, having not yet as happened in any [logically] relative
It would therefor be digitally unviable to try and set the probabilistic
event states of temporal passage by means of any logical/binary
prescription. Even if you could mathematically explicate ALL of the
figurative interactions between all unversal instances now, the means by
which any universal algorythms could be symbolically connected to temporant
relations are not 'absolutely' digitally compatible. much like the argument
about 44khx cd's vrs. true analog records, one can assume that if there is
any skepticism at all on a sound frequency level alone, that this type of
'digital skewing' would no doubt, on a universally computational level,
render to enter 'analog conception' entirely temporantly inaccurate due to
the necessary digitalization [.: the finitization] of absolute [non finite]
temporant mathematical theory.

Therefor, in conclusion to the the question of divergence above, I think
that one can necessarily assume that if indeed you believe you have in fact
protrayed the universe some how, algorythimically prcise to a digital
summation of absolute temporant events [universally now] you are in fact
already presenting a divergence within the basic process of synthesis by
which your very calculations/measurements are being made. The computer is
simply not capable of defining a temorally infinite universe in motion ,
continuously, [while being] while within it's own micro-measurable states //
digital [frequency] time flow are simply not sensitive enough to predict the
absolute natures of analog time flow without missing entire layers and
frquencies of temporant relation between EVERY space-time axis.

in order to compute this properly, you would need 1 network computing the
actual values themselves on a specific matter frequency level [macro
instances] {i.e. the universe of matter[1-d time]} you would then need a
second network analyzing temporant molecular interactions of those macro
instances themselves. {i.e. the phsyio-cehmical instances of the matter
based universe[2-d time]}
you would then need a third network that analyzes the energy based frequency
interactions between the pysio chemical instances on a micro scale, and also
the matter based interactions on a macro level,[chemical-matter
ineraction{3-d time}], then converting those frequency changes over a period
of time into a set state of changed ratios, feeding those ratios into the
first network, such that it can now calculate a new state of set probable
eevents based on ALL [frequency] time changes in the universe at ALL moments
in time.
evidently, you then need a fourth network to calculate how the energy
freuqncy changes in the phsyio-chemical-matter based universe effect
electron-molecular states, thusly influencing the behavioural production of
muons and gluons and other state energy based transferances of time passage.
Much like the context of what happens when you take an object, and fold it
in half, and then in half again and then in half again,
each computer network would represent a digital selection of a
certatin/specific state by which [now universally] that state is either
remaining [sum digital 0] or now folding inwards [sum digital 1]

So much like franks answer, it is already happening, I think we can assume
that if any 'imporbable' divergance occurs in any universal simulation, that
this is actually the very nature of the universe itself when digitally
computed. Therefor the most probable truth in this case would be to develop
a standby network which isolate divergences which could cause the algorythm
to end and isolte them [further] internally such that their divergent flow
patterns must through constraint then 'necessarily' follow the projections
of other
non-divergent processess.

That's my theory on the subject anyway, but then again, most appropriately
stated, the universe bites the intergalactic muffin, so i guess it's mostly
just a cheese theory in the end anyway. cheers.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Georges Quenot" <>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 11:32 AM
Subject: Is the universe computable?

> 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).
> Georges.
Received on Tue Jan 06 2004 - 17:24:45 PST

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