[time-nuts] Most precise clock ever created - here we go again

[Chuck Harris]

Probably.

I spent some time thinking about how I would build
a humanity simulator, and some basic limitations came
to mind.  First, I would have to follow the lead of a
former girlfriend's mother when she said there are
only 200 real people in the world.  By that she meant
that everyone other than the "real" people were just
atmosphere, and didn't exist to any depth... all legend,
and no action.

So, how would you do it without using order infinite
complexity?

Simple (haha!) take the simulated world's view from the
perspective of a "real" person.  If he was inside of a
small room, you would only need to simulate that which
was in the room.  Everything in the outside world could
be kept going as a story line.  As the "real" person
moved through the world, his view of the world would have
to be simulated at greater depth only if he could see
it.  If he gazed out over the beach, the sand would only
need to be there in the most superficial sense.  It would
have to look like sand... It is only when he went onto
the beach that the sand would have to have more substance.
And, if he got ambitious, and pulled out a microscope,
the sand would only then have to have individual granules,
with bits of cruft, and life, within.

This model of the world would greatly simplify the amount
of processing time necessary to keep the 200 "real" people
living their lives.

How does this apply to time?  Well, time would similarly
have to have a variable structure.  If one of our "real"
people was daydreaming, time would slip by without even
being marked.  If he was counting his heartbeats, time would
become a little more precise, down to the second.  If he was
watching the seconds tick off on two clocks, time would get
more precise.  And if he was resonating a certain cesium
line... well, you know.

I would imagine, that it might really tick of the simulation
master if one of the "real" people started doing something
that required great quantities of atoms to need to have all
of their subatomic particles simulated.

Watch out Hadron super collider folks!

-Chuck Harris


shalimr9 at gmail.com wrote:
> So what you say is that access to what's below the Plank time is on a "need-to-know" basis only, and we don't need to
> know?
>
> Didier
>
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Chuck Harris<cfharris at erols.com> Sender: time-nuts-bounces at febo.com Date: Fri, 29
> Oct 2010 21:16:58 To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement<time-nuts at febo.com> Reply-To: Discussion
> of precise time and frequency measurement <time-nuts at febo.com> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] Most precise clock ever
> created - here we go again
>
> Bill Hawkins wrote:
>> Well, I've always thought that the reason that there are quantum dimensions, like the Planck time, is because we
>> are living in a very high-class computer simulation. There has to be granularity at some level.
>
> Only if you are looking at something.  If you aren't looking, the finer precision levels don't need to exist.
>
> For instance, if you glance at the tree canopy out of an airplane window, it only needs to be green shapeless blobs.
>
> There doesn't need to be anything living in the forest, only perhaps a story line.
>
> But if you are standing on the forest floor, it needs to have branches, bark, leaves and twigs... but not cells and
> atoms.
>
> If you look under a microscope, what you are looking at needs cells.  If it is a really good microscope, even tinier
> stuff. Smashing it with a Hadron collider, quarks and other things...
>
> -Chuck Harris
>
> _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at febo.com To unsubscribe, go to
> https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
> _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at febo.com To unsubscribe, go to
> https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
>